Samizdat Republic

Knowing The TRUTH Will Keep US Free

2009-11-11T07:41:00.000-08:00

On this Veteran's Day, the TRUTH is accurately recounted and portrayed in thsi article out of the American Spectator. The title is "The Man Who Despises America". Did our veterans fight and die for this?!

The following is an excerpt from the full article that can be found at:

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/11/the-man-who-despises-america

M.C.

_______________________________

By Mark Hyman on 11.11.09 @ 6:09AM

"The very next paragraph is going to make the nut jobs on the far left excitable beyond belief. I am not referring to all Democrats or even a majority of liberals. I am singling out the "they've-lost-all-touch-with-reality" crowd. This includes Media Matters for America led by the admitted hit-and-run, drunk-driving serial liar. The group includes the unshaven, bathrobe-clad unemployed who live in their mother's basement and are devout followers of MoveOn.Org. It is also the bitter, aging spinster working at the New York Times, the morbidly obese documentary film maker, and cable TV news' resident drama queen who hosts MSNBC's Countdown. They are about to simultaneously suffer from brain aneurisms. So without further delay, I'll say it.

Barack Obama despises America.

When people who voted for Obama in 2008 -- including registered Democrats -- start speaking in normal conversational voices at dinner parties, neighborhood gatherings and PTA meetings that the over-inflated ego from Chicago has it "in for America," then it's clear most reasonable people have reached the same conclusion.

The central conviction of Obama's ideology is that America is guilty of limitless moral failures and is the chief architect of the world's ills. Obama has boundless enmity for America, its key institutions, and its longtime allies. Consider these facts.

The 30-years of Obama's post-adolescent life are radical by any measure. First, he grew up listening to the ramblings of committed Communist Frank Marshall Davis. It had such a profound effect on him that he wrote fondly of Davis in his first book. In fact, that book is replete with statement after statement about how the U.S. is deeply flawed. Most Americans believe in American exceptionalism. Not so with Obama.

Patriotic Americans would not have listened to the bigoted, anti-Semitic, hate-America rants of a fringe religious leader for 20 seconds let alone for 20 years. Yet, Obama who admitted he attended services at Trinity United Church at least twice a month for two decades called Jeremiah Wright his mentor and his moral sounding board.

Nor would most Americans cultivate a close friendship with an admitted domestic terrorist and his wife whose most notable life's accomplishments were to set off bombs that killed and maimed innocent people.

Joining Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright in organizing attendance at Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's 1995 march on Washington is beyond imaginable. Especially after Farrakhan demonstrated public support for Colonel Muammar Qaddafi during the Libyan Leader's most bellicose years against the U.S., which included Libyan complicity in numerous terrorist attacks.
Obama's view of America in national security and foreign affairs is profoundly disappointing to say the least.

Americans overwhelmingly view the men and women who saved Europe and the Far East during World War II as comprising the Greatest Generation. By his comments and actions, President Obama obviously thinks otherwise.

Obama did not honor American greatness on the 60th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift while on his first European trip. Instead, he accused "America [of having] shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward its European allies.

He also denigrated the accomplishments of the American G.I. during World War II in the Pacific theater when he offered a thinly veiled apology for the U.S. having dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those acts brought the war to a swift conclusion, perhaps saving hundreds of thousands of lives when it appeared Japan was prepared to wage an island-by-island battle to the last man.

Obama ordered the release of the so-called CIA "torture memos," seriously damaging delicate intelligence relations with allied nations and placing at grave risk the safety of U.S. intelligence officers working overseas. The impact of his action handcuffs the ability of U.S. intelligence officials to protect the U.S. and American interests from acts of terrorism.

In a matter of weeks last spring, Obama gave deference to a variety of belligerent leaders while stiff-arming longtime American allies. First, he called for closer relations with Cuba while ignoring that nation's long list of continuing human rights abuses. Then he warmly welcomed Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez at an Organization of American States summit.
Next, he failed to respond and set the record straight after Nicaragua's Communist leader Daniel Ortega listed alleged U.S. crimes and atrocities during a nearly one-hour rant at the OAS meeting. It is unsettling that in his own remarks Obama incorrectly claimed the OAS has 36 members rather than the actual 34. Ortega and the hemisphere's other Socialist leaders claim the OAS would include 36 members if Cuba and an independent Puerto Rico were allowed to join.

Mere coincidence or Freudian slip?"

See the rest at:

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/11/the-man-who-despises-america

Mark is right on---unfortunately.

M.C.

_____________________________________________

Nothing Noble about this Nobel- Another "Prize" Obama (Non)Performance

2009-10-11T16:02:00.000-07:00

Many pundits have made the point that President Obama had only been in office for 12 days when the February 1 deadline for nominations to be submitted for this year's Nobel prize occurred. The common theme, among liberals as much as among conservatives, is that there is no way the President should have received the Nobel for that period, or ever for the months since, all the moreso as he had accomplished nothing of any real substance. Agreed!

However, some have missed two (possibly) salient points. The first is that the committee may have considered Obama the man (as opposed to, the President) in awarding him the Prize. However, the fact is that he didn't accomplish anything of Nobel stature as 'the man', either! And he had a whole lot longer to work on it.

The other point is that the committee may have bent the rules an accepted the nomination after the deadline. There is circumstantial evidence this may have been the case. The nomination may have come MUCH later than the deadline. Or Obama is just pretending he didn't know about it. Either case is bad, but the latter is worse as evidence of Obama's guile and deceitfulness. I leave it to the readers to decide what they believe is the case, and how bad it is.

An interesting side note is that the Constitution prohibits a sitting president from accepting gifts from foreign sources. One way Obama could avoid this issue ( the Prize comes with a $1MM award), is to donate it. Perhaps---just a thought here---to his relatives who are living in poverty in Kenya.?Those same relatives who have received no help from the President.

What a a character ( or lack thereof)!

It's clear that Obama is being anointed with this award---which ironically now because of it's award to him is severely diminished in it's moral value (just read the Newsweek article!)---because he exists, nothing more! It's interesting to ponder the opposite of Bush Derangement Syndrome---Obamaphilia! A different kind of derangement syndrome.

And a more dangerous and sinister one at that.

Mark Steyn said it best (Richard Cohen did a dead on sarcastic tourdeforce in the WaPo, too), so we close with his words.

Who can imagine what is next in Dr. Obama's White House of Horrors?

Here's Steyn, in top form, as always!:

Mark Steyn: Nobel tops 'SNL' for Obama joke

Gosh, it's been so long ago ... what "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy" did Obama make in the first 12 days?

Mark Steyn
Syndicated columnist

The most popular headline at the Real Clear Politics Web site the other day was: "Is Obama Becoming A Joke?" With brilliant comedic timing, the very next morning the Norwegians gave him the Nobel Peace Prize. Up next: His stunning victory in this year's Miss World contest. Dec. 12, Johannesburg. You read it here first.

For what, exactly, did he win the Nobel? As the president himself put it:
"When you look at my record, it's very clear what I have done so far. And that is nothing. Almost one year and nothing to show for it. You don't believe me? You think I'm making it up? Take a look at this checklist."
And up popped his record of accomplishment, reassuringly blank.

Oh, no, wait. That wasn't the real President Barack Obama. That was a comedian playing President Obama on "Saturday Night Live." And, for impressionable types who find it hard to tell the difference, CNN – in a broadcast first that should surely have its own category at the Emmys – performed an in-depth "reality check" of the SNL sketch. That's right: They fact-checked the jokes. Seriously. "How much truth is behind all the laughs? Stand by for our reality check," promised Wolf Blitzer, introducing his in-depth report with all the plonking earnestness so cherished by those hapless Americans stuck at Gate 73 for four hours with nothing to watch but the CNN airport channel. Given the network's ever more exhaustive absence of viewers among the non-flight-delayed demographic, perhaps Wolf could make it a regular series:

Who was that lady I saw you with last night?
That was no lady, that was my wife.

"In fact, our sources confirm, his wife is, biologically speaking, a lady. Joining us now is our Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Sanjay, we all like a joke, but how much truth is behind the laughs?"

Fortunately, the Nobel Committee understands that President Obama's accomplishments are no laughing matter. So they gave him the Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." I assumed this was a reference to his rip-roaring success in winning the Olympic Games for Rio, but as it turns out the deadline for Nobel nominations was way back on Feb. 1.

Obama took office on Jan. 20. Gosh, it's so long ago now. What "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy" did he make in those first 12 days? Bowing to the Saudi king? Giving the British prime minister the Walmart discount box of "Twenty Classic Movies You've Seen A Thousand Times"? "Er, Barack, I've already seen these." "That's OK. They won't work in your DVD player anyway."

For these and other "extraordinary efforts" in "cooperation between peoples", President Obama is now the fastest winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in history. Alas, the extraordinary efforts of those first 12 days are already ancient history. Reflecting the new harmony of U.S.-world relations since the administration hit the "reset" button, The Times of London declared the award "preposterous," and Svenska Freds (the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society) called it "shameful." There's something almost quaintly vieux chapeau about the Nobel decision, as if the hopeychangey bumper stickers were shipped surface mail to Oslo and only arrived last week. Everywhere else, they're peeling off: The venerable lefties at Britain's New Statesman currently have a cover story on "Barack W. Bush".

Happily, there are still a few Americans willing to stand by Mister Saturday Night. "I am shocked at the mean-spirited comments," wrote Judi Romaine to The Times in protest at all the naysaying. "I'm afraid I've registered into a very conversative [sic], fear-based world here but I'd like to suggest the incredible notion we all create our worlds in our conversations. What are you building by maligning rather than creating discourses for workability? Bravo to Obama and others working for people, however it appears to cynics."

If that's the language you have to speak when you're "working for people," I'd rather work for a cranky mongoose. Yet to persons who can use phrases like "creating discourses for workability" with a straight face, Obama remains an heroic figure. Like Judi Romaine, he works hard to "create our worlds in our conversations." Why, only the other day, very conversationally, the administration floated the trial balloon that it could live with the Taliban returning to government in Afghanistan. A lot of Afghans won't be living with it, but that's their lookout.

This is – how to put this delicately? – something of a recalibration of Obama's previous position. From about a year after the fall of Baghdad, Democrats adopted the line that Bush's war in Iraq was an unnecessary distraction from the real war, the good war, the one in Afghanistan that everyone – Dems, Europeans, all the nice people – were right behind, 100 percent. No one butched up for the Khyber Pass more enthusiastically than Barack Obama: "As President, I will make the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban the top priority." (July 15, 2008)

But that was then, and this is now. As the historian Robert Dallek told Obama recently, "War kills off great reform movements." As the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne reminded the president, his supporters voted for him not to win a war but to win a victory on health care and other domestic issues. Obama's priorities lie not in the Hindu Kush but in America: Why squander your presidency on trying to turn an economically moribund feudal backwater into a functioning nation state when you can turn a functioning nation state into an economically moribund feudal backwater?

Gosh, given their many assertions that Afghanistan is "a war we have to win" (Obama to the VFW, August 2008), you might almost think, pace Judi Romaine, that it's the president and water-bearers like Gunga Dionne who are the "cynics." In a recent speech to the Manhattan Institute, Charles Krauthammer pointed out that, in diminishing American power abroad to advance statism at home, Obama and the American people will be choosing decline. There are legitimate questions about our war aims in Afghanistan, and about the strategy necessary to achieve them. But, eight years after being toppled, the Taliban will see their return to power as a great victory over the Great Satan, and so will the angry young men from Toronto to Yorkshire to Chechnya to Indonesia who graduated from Afghanistan's Camp Jihad during the 1990s.

And so will the rest of the world: They will understand that the modern era's ordnungsmacht (the "order maker") has chosen decline.

Barack Obama will have history's most crowded trophy room, but his presidency is shaping up as a tragedy – for America and the world.
©MARK STEYN

YOU LIE!

2009-09-17T18:12:00.001-07:00

Representative Joe Wilson, in uttering those words, entered them into the political lexicon of our Republic. And for once, after saying them, unlike so many other politicians, he didn't retract them.

Then comes the storm!

Maureen Dowd is a mind reader. She knows that what Joe really said was "You lie, boy!". I mean, he is from the South, so he must be a bigot, yes? And Jimmy Carter is from the South, too!

But- he says that it was racist of Joe to say "You lie!"- that he never would have said that if the President was white! Wow, what powers of deduction are at work.

So---not everyone from the South is a bigot- right Jimmy? How to tell the difference, one wonders? Oh- I get it---if you SUPPORT the President, you can't be a bigot. And if you don't, you are de facto, a bigot. That clears things up, doesn't it?

Of course, recent polls show that 92% of respondents say they would vote for a qualified candidate for President regardless of race. (Do 92% of the respondents live outside the South?).

Then comes...Bill Cosby!

Who says...yeah, the poll result was 92%, but , come on, that leaves almost 10% of people who DO consider race...and who knows how many people didn't answer the poll truthfully?! So, there must be a whole lot more closet bigots out there, right?

Like...Jimmy Carter? He is truly an anti-semite, but, somehow that isn't racist or bigoted in the stranger and stranger liberal culture, these days.

Methinks, most of those liberal pundits and their fellow travellers hurling invective at Joe and by association, anyone who doesn't support (no, worship) the President, 'because he is black'---are projecting their own inner racism.

As the Bard once said: "Methinks thou doth protest too much"!

Something going on with that 'Joe Wilson' name and the truth, hmm?! The first one (Yellow Cake Joe) on one side of that equation- and this one on the other- the side of Truth.

M.C.

The New Fascism- Part II

2009-08-08T17:50:00.000-07:00

This blog started with a description of the coming fascist rule. Only the blind, or intentionally self deceived, can not see what is happening. The latest development is flag@whitehouse.gov- the first time I can remember where, right out in the open, the Administration (as radicals used to like to say in the Nixon years) is openly calling for Americans to 'rat' on one another.

This is just another step down the road to tyranny and despotism in our nation's government. We are moving away from a being a nation of laws to a nation being ruled. That is exactly what the American Revolution was all about. The "world turned upside down" indeed!

Democratic 'lawmakers' are decrying being 'assaulted' at town hall meetings. However, they are behind the real assaulting that is going on. They say (falsely) that angry constituents are carrying 'swastikas' (seen any pictures or first hand witnesses to that?) and intimidating speakers and meeting organizers. Yet, the only true violence identified so far was against a conservative (black) man by union thugs, working at the behest of the White House ("Hit back twice as hard"- White House advice to Democrats, quoted in numerous media outlets). Hit back twice as hard indeed---the man had to go to the ER with multiple injuries.

Meanwhile, Democrats are cancelling their meetings (pretty neat trick---they then can claim later they did not receive negative feedback on the health care plan, natch---and they don't have to put up with unhappy constituents! A two-fer) They believe all sorts of odd things (for example, that the people showing up at their town hall meetings are not actually their constituents, a claim routinely proved false). A few Lapdog Republicans are also feeling the heat---we haven't heard any of them are cancelling their town halls, though.

The Dems just aren't feeling the love and that is something they think they are entitled to, because...because, uh, why? Must have something to do with welfare, bailouts and clunkers, eh?

Fortunately, the American people can't be bought so cheaply, and the Dems are beginning to see that. One can only hope and pray that this is the fascist's high tide and NOW "We the People" will begin to take back that which is OURS.

One prays this is so.

M.C.

(Thanks to Lucianne.com for the poster art)

"The Only Ones Crazier Than The Birthers Are The Anti-Birthers"

2009-08-01T08:25:00.000-07:00

Yes, the truth is beginning to peek out from the debris of the anti-birther self-righteousness. Amazingly, the quote in the title of this post is from a liberal writer on the Huffington Post (a notorious liberal site). Yes, some liberals DO care about he truth and the Constitution, and COMMON SENSE. Really!

As was also pointed out in the article, when John McCain's citizenship (natural born) was questioned, he immediately produced his birth certificate, no questions asked.

And, none further needed to be asked.

Therein lies the nub of the thing. Forget all the diatribe against the birthers. Forget ideology (as the liberal on the Huffington Post was able to do). Forget 'stare decisis' as James Lewis wrote in the American Thinker the other day -did he drink the kool-aid, one wonders?- as have some other conservatives who seem to care if the liberals like them or not! Very disappointing, Mr. Lewis.

Here are the salient facts- stay focused on these like a laser beam and you can't go wrong in knowing what is right, wrong, or irrelevant in this controversy.

Presidents are required by law to disclose many personal details of their lives (for example, tax returns)

Presidents are required to obey the law, just like the rest of us.

The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States, as per the Constitution

When candidate McCain was questioned on this, he produced is ORIGINAL birth certificate

The House passed a resolution declaring that McCain was (and is) in fact qualified (natural born citizen) to run, having been born on a US Navy base in the Panama Canal Zone

The House has not even hinted at passing a similar resolution in regard to Obama

There IS a controversy over this

The President COULD release his original birth certificate if he chose to- this would quell most of the questions, if not all

It's alleged that Obama is also not authorizing release of his (higher)education records because he received financial aid as a foreign student

He could authorize release of those records to squelch this allegation

Average citizens have to produce original birth and education documents for a variety of reasons in the normal course of their lives

National Security background checks for Top Secret and higher classifications routinely seek and receive these documents or the classification is denied

The President and his legal team are spending millions to PREVENT the release of the documents in question

People with nothing to hide do not fight court battles, using personal money and taxpayer dollars, to fight release of their birth and educational records, when they have nothing to hide!

The best case that could be made for Obama for this obstructive behavior is hubris (overweening pride). The rest of the cases are worst, leading to outright deception and fraud.

Lewis was concerned that if the USSC tried to remove the President, were it to be found he had in fact attempted to conceal that he is not qualified to serve by birth as the President, there would be 'riots'. I have news for him---if the USSC were to fail to act in removing an unqualified President Obama in such a case, there would be riots!

In fact, there would be (civil) war and Revolution- based on the truth, not lies, fraud and coverup.

The President can BE the President---by releasing the records NOW. He has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Prove it, Mr. President. We've got some serious business to do in this country---you say so every day. And this is a distraction, it's undermining your Presidency. I know, I know, you think you have 3 more years to make your mark, you can wait them out. But, what man knows what tomorrow will bring?

Be the Leader you say you are and many expect you to be. Do the right thing.

NOW.

M.C.

Bike Lane Logic

2009-07-20T20:31:00.000-07:00

As Monty Python says...and now for something completely different!

As I was driving back from The City tonight, I noticed the sidewalks along the main drag...that are never used. And the bike path that is hardly ever used...and thought of all the wasted money, just because some DOT engineers came up with a concept called 'urban profiles'. The way this works is that if a road is of a certain size, in a certain place, it must have a median, curb and gutter, bikepath and sidewalks on each side.

Think about the crisis we have in infrastructure and you begin to appreciate what a crime it is, really, that scarce public funds get spent on an 'ideal' road profile that, apart from the road surface itself, doesn't get used! Not only is the money spent wastefully installing these unused/little used appurtenances, but then they have to be maintained...in perpetuity. If we could just curb wasteful actions like these, and tailor and right-size the infrastructure, then we could address REAL needs...not wants, or desires, that drain the public treasury.

Another way to highlight how unquestioned assumptions like this drive and drain our resources is to think of it this way:

We mandate that bicycles, which, when I was a kid, drove on sidewalks, must drive on the road (with or without bikelanes, in this case, we will assume, with), with the flow of traffic. Meanwhile, there is a perfectly good (and much safer) underused sidewalk a few feet away. Think about this! Would any of you agree that we should, to save money, eliminate sidewalks as an improvement and mandate that the pedestrians walk in the BIKE LANE, along with the bikes?! I doubt it! Madness, you say! But...

All a bike rider is...is a pedestrian on a bike! Sharing the roadway with up to 10 ton trucks, travelling up to 45 mph in most urban sections. The bike rider even must go with the flow, so he can't see what is going on behind him.

Wouldn't it make more sense (silly me, as if that would make a difference to an urban transportation planner!) for BIKES and PEOPLE to share the much, much safer sidewalk? After all, they are about the same size, close to the same weight...and the bikes and people can walk in any direction they like, as long as it is safe. Which it would be!

Think of the savings, eliminating all those unnecessary and INTRINSICALLY DANGEROUS bike paths. We are talking major capital improvement bucks... and saving on YEARS of maintenance. Billions, over time. BILLIONS.

And what kind of society says that 1,000 pound motorcycles (and those are BIG ones!) can share the roadway with those 10 ton trucks? Why not stick the bicycles out there too! All a motorcycle is is a BIG moped---a motorized bike. And worse, if the motorcycle owner buys a minimal insurance policy, he doesn't have to wear a helmet!But oftentimes, bicyclists do! CRAZY.

And then there are the laws that allow 6 year old children- FIRST GRADERS, for crying out loud- to operate 500 lb. 4-wheelers, no helmet required, no parental supervision required...off road! Uneven surfaces! Trees! Ditches! If that isn't a form of parental neglect, at the least, I don't know what is.

Why is common sense so...uncommon!

The unquestioned, un-rational assumptions cost lives and money. Blood and treasure. We grow livid at a few thousand combat deaths among our military who are trained for , and expect to be, in hazardous situations, where their lives are at risk.

But, we don't even think about 50,000 traffic deaths a year...most totally avoidable if only a seat belt was worn, or the driver was sober.

Crazy. And we don't even question these assumptions.

CRAZY...just scratches the surface on our institutional lunacy.

M.C.

"Judicial DeMeanor"

2009-07-19T11:31:00.000-07:00

Sotomayor Samba II
Judge Sotomayor is widely quoted as having said that the judgement of a "wise Latina woman" is superior to that of (old) white males (and presumably old, white females, too); her judgement in the Connecticut fire department test case was unanimously overturned by the USSC; and a number of Senators have said directly, or directly, that she is lying to the Senate, under oath, about previously statements and actions (and lost is that she was member of an all women's club until AFTER her nomination was made). As one Senator remarked (I couldn't believe he would actually say this, out loud---hooray! It's exactly what I was thinking!)---'What do you think would happen to me, as a white male, if I said and did the things you did?'. Sotomayor's rejoinder was that she could understand how he felt about all that (ah, empathy!), but...you had to consider the context (what does THAT mean?).

However, Senator Arlen Specter clarified all that for us, by telling us what is THE really, really important quality that this nominee brings to the table- she has a 'judicial demeanor'!

So THAT is what it takes to become a Supreme. It's all about 'attitude'!

And the "Lapdog Republicans" are rolling over as fast as they can, announcing they won't hold up the hearings, announcing as early as they can they will vote yes, etc.

Honestly, I am not sure what kind of judge she will make. BUT, she has a history of making the kind of comments and allusions that would sink any white male/female candidate for ANY position at the federal level. The fact that this history of comments, allusions and associations (The Belizean Grove, La Raza, etc) is being given such short shrift means that, ironically, she is being given a pass, most likely BECAUSE she is a 'minority' candidate. Racism and sexism being given a pass for these reasons---isn't that racism in and of itself?

Russians refuse to shake hands with Obama?

No! This is a typical example of Obama being VERY CLEVER. Remember when he kowtowed to the Saudi King---and then denied that we had seen that with our very eyes? (He did kowtow). Then there were the two cases wherein he allegedly is looking at the 'backside' of first one (16 year old) and then another (older) youth delegate and staffer, respectively, at the G8 Summit. In the first case, he actually was looking elsewhere (checking where he was going to step). In the second case, hard to say.

Now this. The right wing blogosphere just ignited upon seeing the MSNBC Andrea Mitchell video that seems to show a line of Russians refusing to shake Obama's hand, but shaking the Russian President's! Just one problem...not so! The edited video skips past Obama shaking hands with Russians to Obama introducing American staffers to President Medvedev.

Here is where he is so clever. If you look at how Obama is holding his hands, you can see that a case can be made (this is what my wife saw) that he is deliberately making it appear that he is being snubbed. You may be skeptical of this, but, I emphasize, there is no overstating the guile and wiliness of this individual. Look how he is 'hiding in plain sight" on the birth certificate issue!

There are two motives here. First, he is looking back over his shoulder to the Saudi incident, where he did exactly what is seen. By discrediting subsequent 'video veritas' moments, he casts doubt on THAT incident---subsequent events provide cover for preceding events.

And, more importantly---the 'right' (and a few on the 'left' and mainstreams media, too---especially in regard to the G8) jumped right on the bandwagon---and look foolish after the fact. Therefore, discrediting their FUTURE credibility. And intimidating them. After all, if what you see turns out to be not what you think it was, and the President is right, after all, every time...

I have said in the past that President Obama is not the "sharpest knife in the drawer". I withdraw that hasty assessment. This is one sharp dude. And the more dangerous for it.

Truth must be served, not just what we 'would like to see'. Every time a 'scandal' like this pops up, we who want to hold the President accountable must give it a second and third look before deciding whether we 'trust our lying eyes'! OUR future credibility depends on it. Putin may be have a black belt in judo; Obama is a master of political ju-jitsu. We must make strenuous efforts to ensure that he cannot gain leverage against the truth.

No, you won't read this or anything like it in the mainstream media and blogs- they have been both co-opted and embarrassed at the same time. Nullified, is more like it. Even Helen Thomas recently said that even Nixon never did 'anything like what Obama is doing'. (Query: Was she criticizing the President- or admiring him? Or both?).

Think about it. Think about why this blog is named SAMIZDAT Republic. Only the underground press can shine the light, even now. It will get worse---hopefully, it will eventually get better.

Let's pray so, and soon.

Veritas.

M.C.

http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2009/07/russians-refuse-to-shake-hands-with.html

SARAH PALIN- A TRULY LIBERATED WOMAN

2009-07-06T18:06:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin is liberated by her Faith.

Sarah Palin is liberated by her personal strength of principled conviction.

Sarah Palin is liberated by her politics.

FAITH LIBERATION: Faith in God and trust in HIM, following THE Higher calling, first and foremost.

PRINCIPLED CONVICTION: She is convicted that her principles are true and should be born witness to by living them as well as talking about them. Her decision to love Trig as the unique person he is, and not to treat him as a disposable item, is but one example of that. Her willingness to quit the 'game' for a higher calling, is another. Putting family first (only after God, but also, as a responsibility before God) is poignant and the most recently visited example of this.

How can anyone say she has no empathy, as Purdum recently wrote?!

POLITICS: She lives in the belief that true Conservatism is the only path that will lead to a future for our country. Another aspect of her higher calling.. wherein she leads, does not follow the pack, but blazes her own trail. She sets the pace and the stage for a greater day for America.

And 'they' hate her for it. But their hate (Purdum, Dowd, others) does nothing to diminish her, or to invalidate her beliefs. And they hate that worst of all.

Which is why almost all the attacks are ad hominem---from Tina Fey to Maureen Dowd ("one nutty puppy"). It's ALL they can attack. And they hate that too.

She believes in the old principles of freedom of speech and freedom to live free! She is a successful mother, leader and woman. Her success, her courage show how poorly they live, and how far from any real principles they are.

And they hate her example of how a free woman lives, according to the Light that guides her, most of all. Because---the darkness cannot stand against the Light.

Stay tuned, there is more to come from this free spirited, truly liberated American original from the last frontier.

M.C.

ONE INSPECTOR GENERAL, TWO INSPECTOR GENERALS, THREE INSPECTOR GENERALS- MORE?

2009-06-18T19:15:00.000-07:00

So now it comes out that Obama has fired, or is about to fire, THREE Inspector Generals---all of whom have allegedly acted adversely to the interests of the President or his friends.

Time for a special prosecutor.

WALPIN UPDATE

The President fires Walpin in violation of a law he co-sponsored. He attracts criticism from his own party,most notably Senator Claire McCaskill. Wait---the President has learned how to unscramble eggs, according to media reports. After the fact he issued a letter to Congress enumerating his 'reasons' for firing Walpin (as we said recently , the President sought, and obtained forgiveness):

"Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who had raised questions about the firing Tuesday, released a statement Wednesday in light of the letter saying the president's reasons are "substantial" and the decision to remove Walpin "appears well-founded." She said the letter puts the White House in "full compliance" with the law, which requires the president to provide an explanation before firing an inspector general.Walpin, though, concluded that his firing stems from bad blood between him and the board, as well as with Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson -- an Obama supporter whom he had investigated for alleged misuse of federal funds. He said his performance at the May meeting drew criticism because he issued two reports critical of the board. In one, he criticized the settlement reached in the Johnson case; in the other, he criticized the use of millions of dollars for a program at the City University of New York."The board at that meeting was clearly angry at my temerity," he said. "

So, the letter wasn't timely; as for the reasons, as reported in the Washington Post, they don't stand up to scrutiny- reports a real time witness:

IG witness Blows Up White House Excuse

By QHillyer on June 17, 2009 into Water Cooler

"We have found an exclusive witness who directly contradicts multiple aspects of the official White House explanation for firing AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin. Separately, one part of the White House explanation treads on exceedingly shaky ground that raises the specter of improper age discrimination.

President Barack Obama's highly unusual move to fire an inspector general has drawn bipartisan inquiries from Members of both the House and Senate who are worried about protecting the independence of inspectors general. In response, White House Special Counsel Norman Eisen made a number of allegations against Mr. Walpin in a letter to Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). Many of the Eisen letter's charges are rather vague (“he had engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct”; “Mr. Walpin had become unduly disruptive to agency operations”).

Two allegations are more specific. 1)There was a “May 20, 2009 Board meeting at which Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve.” 2)“We further learned that Mr. Walpin had been absent from the Corporation's headquarters, insisting upon working form his home in New York over the objections of the Corporation's Board.” Mr. Walpin dispute these statements, as might be expected. But now, in a Washington Times exclusive, so does another official who was a first-hand witness at several of the key meetings involved. The witness, whose bona fides are unimpeachable, is on the agency's payroll, and thus spoke on grounds of anonymity. The Washington Times contacted him through our own research, without Mr. Walpin's knowledge or suggestion.

The second issue is simpler to explain, so let's start there. In January, Mr. Walpin, 77, informed then-President George W. Bush's administration that he would be resigning his post, largely because he and his wife of 52 years had tired of his weekly commute away from his home with her in New York to the offices in Washington, D.C. He claims, and others confirm, that several career staff members subsequently talked him out of resigning, saying that they were proud of the work they were doing under him, and that they suggested he could often just telecommute from New York. When he accepted their pleading and decided to stay, one staff member told the Times today, “Everybody was pleased. He really had taken charge of the office and gave it a sense of mission that everybody felt proud of.” A witness at a subsequent meeting among Mr. Walpin and the agency's general counsel, Frank Trinity, and acting CEO, Nicola Goren, confirms Mr. Walpin's account – namely, that Mr. Trinity and Ms. Goren said they had no objection to the telecommuting arrangement and that (in Mr. Walpin's recounting of it) “there is no reason why it can't work.” Mr. Walpin told the Times that a standing audit committee of the agency's board – consisting of chairman Alan Solomont, Vice Chairman Steven Goldsmith, and board member Eric Tanenblatt – lightly questioned the arrangement at one meeting, but agreed to “let's see how it works.” After that, he said, “I never heard a whimper” of complaint about the arrangement from the board or anybody else. “I never heard an objection.” Again, the witness largely corroborates his account. The witness was not at the original meeting with the audit committee, but attended several later full board meetings in which Mr. Walpin mentioned his telecommuting arrangement without a single objection being raised. Furthermore, both Mr. Walpin and the independent witness said Mr. Walpin always was extremely accessible regardless of where he was working that day, and that the board never indicated otherwise. Independently, both volunteered that Mr. Walpin had made clear the telecommuting would last on a trial basis only through June anyway, at which time they would review the set-up to see how well it was working. So much for Mr. Walpin “insisting” on telecommuting “over the objections of the Corporation's Board.”

Now let's examine the second item of contention, the May 20 meeting at which Mr. Walpin allegedly was “confused” and “disoriented.” Before discussing the actual events of the meeting, consider several points. First the allegation comes awfully close to profiling Mr. Walpin through reference to characteristics often thought to be age-related. By questioning his “capacity to serve” without establishing a pattern of such alleged behavior or providing any medical report confirming a lack of “capacity,” the White House skirts dangerously close to illegal age discrimination. It is worth noting that nobody ever alleged that such a pattern of disorientation existed. Even if “confusion” did occur at one meeting, that does not constitute grounds for dismissing an independent IG absent other evidence of incapacity. An IG is by law an independent, apolitical official who can be removed only for just cause. Through several lengthy interviews with the Washington Times and numerous television and radio appearances since his dismissal, Mr. Walpin has proved to be mentally sharp as a tack. With not a single suggestion to the contrary on any other known occasion, this citation of incapacity is scurrilous and, arguably, defamatory. Indeed, congressional staff might ask if it could be grounds for a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

That said.... what did, actually, happen at the meeting? By the staff member/witness's account, later independently confirmed by Mr. Walpin, the IG had been working around the clock before the meeting, overseeing reports and reactions thereto concerning a case in Sacramento embarrassing to a close Obama ally and a case in New York highly embarrassing to board itself of the Corporation for National and Community Service. By both independent accounts, Mr. Walpin opened the meeting by chastising the board for particularly weak oversight of the grants, involving the Teaching Fellows program of the City University of New York. By both accounts, the board met Mr. Walpin's report with considerable hostility and repeated interruptions, during which the questions ranged without much logical order over several different topics. At some point, the board asked Mr. Walpin to leave the room for 15 minutes while discussing the matter in private. When Mr. Walpin returned, he found his papers out of order. The witness confirms that Mr. Walpin asked for time to get his papers back in their proper order, but was denied that courtesy. “I was also denied time to review my notes,” Mr. Walpin said. Mr. Walpin continues: “There was no inability on my part to express myself before I was asked to leave for 15 minutes. After, there was indeed one question I didn't understand, because so many different items were on the table at once. I also felt physically ill in the middle of that meeting, and indeed was very ill that night. But even if I appeared to others to be confused that one time , that was based on just one occasion out of hundreds [of communications with the board]. Two weeks after that I had a long telephone meeting with the [audit] committee. The only confusion that existed then was the committee's confusion about its own duties.”

The witness, who agreed that Mr. Walpin and the board “weren't connecting” at the meeting after the board hectored him and denied him time to get his notes back in order, agrees that never before or since has he seen Mr. Walpin the slightest bit “confused.” “Was Barack Obama 'incapacitated' because he got confused once and said there are 56 states?” asked Mr. Walpin. “Of course not. Do I lack the capacity to serve because of one occasion where they were hostile to me? That's baloney.”

Mr. Walpin notes one other anomaly. On Tuesday June 9, just one day before the White House first asked him to step down, the agency asked him to make a speech on June 23 in San Francisco to a conference of some 2,000 staff members and grantees. The invitation, he said, was delivered by Gretchen Van De Veer, director of the Office of Leadership Development and Training at the Corporation for National and Community Service. “They begged me to come,” he said. “Why would they do that if they thought I am incapacitated?” Previous Washington Times editorials have shown the highly suspicious nature of President Obama's move to fire Mr. Walpin. Today's witness adds fuel to those suspicions about the White House's motivations and propriety in this affair."

THE FINAL WORD

Here's an angle on Obama's actions against Walpin, specifically, and IGs in general, that most people wouldn't realize, unless you worked in the field, as I have:

Obama is a 'former' "community organizer"---community organizers work closely with non-profits (like Mayor Johnson's "St. HOPE Academy"), and non-profits are always, always running into headaches with Inspector General types. Maybe our President (or those close to him) had a close, unhappy encounter or two with IG types in the past, and now he is evening the score.

V is for Vendetta.

Or maybe M is for Michelle?

Stay tuned...as Drudge says: "developing".

A CLEARLY ILLEGAL ACT

2009-06-16T19:23:00.000-07:00

For the first time, the President has his hands tied to a clearly illegal act. The abrupt and suspect termination of Inspector General Walpin, as it was conducted by the President and his staff, violates the provisions of the Inspector General Act that Obama himself voted for while he was Senator Obama! In this he has outdone John Kerry who voted "for the war in Iraq before he voted against it." The magnitude of this folly---or more likely, breathtaking arrogance and disregard for the law and/or anything that happened preceding his election to the Presidency is truly beyond anything we have seen any President do since Nixon. Among other things, President Obama violated the notice (advise and consent) requirements to Congress and the statutorily required time line. Even top Democrats have concluded the President violated the law.

So what happens next? It's likely Obama will 'seek forgiveness' since he did not 'ask permission', so to speak. He will try to do this privately with the Majority, and will ignore Republicans, if he can. Speaking of Republicans, this is an issue they can run with, if they but will. The appearances, Mayor Johnson being a prime supporter of the President, should enable them to score heavily against the Administration, if they but will. But will they?

Imagine this for a moment...

"President Bush today fired Inspector General Walpin over his handling of an AmeriCorps investigation, which investigation revealed that Bush's supporter, Mayor Johnson, misspent federal funds and was forced, including personally, to pay back hundreds of thousands of misspent dollars. Bush's action is in violation of the Inspector General Act..."

What do you think would be happening if the above scenario had occurred? One word sums it up:

IMPEACHMENT!

Submerged in all this is this question, which is material:

Even if, as alleged, Inspector General Walpin DID mishandle the investigation, grandstand to the media, and royally tick off the U.S. Attorney---is Walpin right in his conclusions?

The answer: obviously he is, as money has been paid back, including by the Mayor himself. The only reason Mayor Johnson is not being prosecuted is that the U.S. Attorney himself is making political points by NOT prosecuting the case---all the more to spike the ball with the IG and support the President's "case".

And does anyone doubt that President Obama's hand was in this BEFORE it came to light? Can you say "obstruction of justice"?

OK, Congress and especially 'Pubbies!---here is your chance to begin to redeem yourselves with the public and stand on the principle that we are a nation of laws, not a proto-fascist state- a kakistocracy, where the worst lead, and no man is safe in the law.

What will it be?

UIGHURS: Frolic at our expense

Why did Bermuda go behind Britain's back to make a secret deal with to accept the "Bermuda Four" Uighurs? The U.S. freely admits it kept the deal secret until it was done to "avoid opposition"! And this isn't even questioned! Imagine, what would break loose if the BUSH administration...

An exclusive photo of the Uighurs, as provided by Rushan Abbas. From L to R: Salahidin Abdulahad, Ablikim Turahun, lawyers Sabin Willett and Susan Baker Manning, Khalil Manut, and Abdulla Abdulqadir.

The Bottom Line

In case you haven't picked up on it, this all is an extension of the 'big lie' tactic---writ VERY large and growing, to whit:

If you do so much, so wrong, so fast and so often, no one can keep up, much less think about WHY it happened and, as Lenin famously posited:

" Kto Kogo?"= "Who gains"?

Who, Indeed?

M.C.

How Far We Have Fallen

2009-06-14T14:01:00.001-07:00

Ah, the poor Palin clan. Target for every lunacy the fascist left can throw at them- including infamously limelighting the (statutory or otherwise) fantasy rape of one daughter or another. Under pressure, Letterman gave a non-apology. He REALLY was referring not to 14 year old Willow, but 18 year old Bristol. As if that made everything alright.

This is bad enough, but, what follows is worse.

Kathleen Parker, once a reliable fount of common sense, seems to have totally lost her moral bearings in the Obamanation. A few days ago she wrote a column that seemed to start out condemning Letterman's shtick. However, after a few lines, she matched his 'non-apology' with her 'non-condemnation.' She chided that we all need to remember that Letterman is a comedian (really?) and he was just doing what comedians do, after all---he just took it a step too far. And woe be to us, let's just stay away from censorship! After all, he was just taking two seemingly unassociated things ("as comedians often do") and putting them together for comic relief.

Sure. Right. Uh Huh.

Realizing , perhaps innately, that SHE was going too far, she was moved at one point to declaim (after pointing out that Bristol and Willow where being put "out there" by Governor Palin) that she was NOT saying they (Palins) "asked for it" (as in "rape victims are asking for it).

What intellectual poverty. What lack of common sense- and sensibility.

How sad...Kathleen Parker, a mainstream journalist, basically saying it's ok to have "humor" like this, on national television. Once upon a time, no one would even hint about a child being raped in front of her mother, at a baseball game, by a player---or even about a governor having a "slutty stewardess look"---I wonder how stewardesses feel about that?

Kathleen didn't say. Just another day in 2009 America.

M.C.

EMPIRICAL PROOF OF LIBERAL/PRO-OBAMA MEDIA BIAS (among other things such as protofascism, rigging the market and classic self-dealing)

2009-05-31T13:52:00.000-07:00

As if any additional proof was needed! However, consider the following:

Case 1: Bill Clinton demands and receives the resignation of all Federal District Attorneys. The 'Big Media' sees nothing irregular in this. After all , the President has a right to pick his team, right? Of course, law enforcement officers, and especially officers of the court, are supposed to be impartial and apolitical, not on any 'side' or 'team'.

Fast forward to the Bush Administration and the AG Gonzalez scandal. Remember the uproar (and subsequent resignation of AG Gonzalez) when it was alleged that there might have been 'political' reasons for the requests for resignations from the DAs? Of course, Clinton was smarter than Bush in requiring ALL the attorneys to resign en masse. (Democrats are better than the Republicans in wielding the levers of power, remember?)

Now, Obama is reported to be closing auto dealerships based on political affiliation, i.e., REPUBLICAN dealerships are being closed. And there is no general uproar.

Draw your own conclusions.

Obama and his ilk are worthy of the Kingfisher (Huey Long, former governor of Louisiana)---or either Mayor Daley.

Liberal fascism is closer than you think- it's here! The news outlets report it every day- and of great concern, most don't give it a second thought.

Speaking of 'giving it a thought'= aside for the overt corruption of closing dealers on a partisan basis, might Obama Inc., who now owns a majority of GM, be shortcutting potential competition as well. Triangulation at its 'finest'!

M.C.

THEY EAT THEIR OWN

2009-05-30T05:39:00.000-07:00

To Ted Rall's credit! He is sounding an alarm that we all should listen to, so as not to later wonder "for whom the bell tolls".

M.C.

Ted Rall: It’s increasingly evident that Obama should resign

THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER

Posted May 29, 2009 @ 12:02 AM

MIAMI — We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama’s inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.

From health care to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn’t have the nerve to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?

Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now — before he drags us further into the abyss.

I refer here to Obama’s plan for “preventive detentions.” If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in “prolonged detention.” Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama’s shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it OK.
In practice, Obama wants to let government goons snatch you, me and anyone else they deem annoying off the street.

Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a military dictatorship. Because dictatorial regimes rely on fear rather than consensus, their priority is self-preservation rather than improving their people’s lives. They worry obsessively over the one thing they can’t control, what George Orwell called “thoughtcrime” — contempt for rulers that might someday translate to direct action.

Locking up people who haven’t done anything wrong is worse than un-American and a violent attack on the most basic principles of Western jurisprudence. It is contrary to the most essential notion of human decency. That anyone has ever been subjected to “preventive detention” is an outrage. That the president of the United States, a man who won an election because he promised to elevate our moral and political discourse, would even entertain such a revolting idea offends the idea of civilization itself.

Obama is cute. He is charming. But there is something rotten inside him. Unlike the Republicans who backed George W. Bush, I won’t follow a terrible leader just because I voted for him. Obama has revealed himself. He is a monster, and he should remove himself from power.
“Prolonged detention,” reported The New York Times, would be inflicted upon “terrorism suspects who cannot be tried.”

“Cannot be tried.” Interesting choice of words.

Any “terrorism suspect” (can you be a suspect if you haven’t been charged with a crime?) can be tried. Anyone can be tried for anything. At this writing, a Somali child is sitting in a prison in New York, charged with piracy in the Indian Ocean, where the U.S. has no jurisdiction. Anyone can be tried.

What they mean, of course, is that the hundreds of men and boys languishing at Guantánamo and the thousands of “detainees” the Obama administration anticipates kidnapping in the future cannot be convicted. As in the old Soviet Union, putting enemies of the state on trial isn’t enough. The game has to be fixed. Conviction has to be a foregone conclusion.

Why is it, exactly, that some prisoners “cannot be tried”?

The Old Grey Lady explains why Obama wants this “entirely new chapter in American law” in a boring little sentence buried a couple of paragraphs past the jump and a couple of hundred words down page A16: “Yet another question is what to do with the most problematic group of Guantánamo detainees: those who pose a national security threat but cannot be prosecuted, either for lack of evidence or because evidence is tainted.”

In democracies with functioning legal systems, it is assumed that people against whom there is a “lack of evidence” are innocent. They walk free. In countries where the rule of law prevails, in places blessedly free of fearful leaders whose only concern is staying in power, “tainted evidence” is no evidence at all. If you can’t prove that a defendant committed a crime — an actual crime, not a thoughtcrime — in a fair trial, you release him and apologize to the judge and jury for wasting their time.

It is amazing and incredible, after eight years of Bush’s lawless behavior, to have to still have to explain these things. For that reason alone, Obama should resign.

Ted Rall is a columnist for Universal Press Syndicate.

AND NOW A FEW WORDS FROM...

2009-05-29T20:39:00.000-07:00

PRAVDA! If you doubt that our country has made a radical and regrettable change, read on.

Wise and bitterly strong words from our former deadly enemy, which escaped the bondage we are descending into.

As Russians would say, we have become 'nekulturny'- that is, uncultured. We are losing our cultural, political and societal culture.

Title: American capitalism gone with a whimper

Front page / Opinion / Columnists
27.04.2009
Source: Pravda.Ru

Pages: 12

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too.

Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.
So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin
The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina
Pravda.ru forum. The place where truth hurts

SOTOMAYOR SAMBA and KOREAN KRUNCH

2009-05-28T16:47:00.000-07:00

Sources allege Sotomayor has made racist remarks. Based on press reports, she has stated Hispanics (and other minorities) make better judgements (as in, the judicial due process) than white (males). Some groups are livid ,as they should be,while others make little or nothing of her comments, which were delivered at a "La Raza" (which translated, means, "The Race") meeting.

What's the litmus test here? Very simply put, if Obama's nominee was a white male, who said that whites make superior judgements as compared to Hispanics or other minorities, and these remarks were made before the "The White Race Club"---would that be (construed as) racist or evidence of racism?

You know the answer. And you also know there is a double standard at work---which is in and of itself proof of racism (or as some might say, 'reverse racism').

In any case, if as AG Eric Holder said, we are cowards when it comes to racial issues, then let's take his cue, and stop being cowards.

Racism is WRONG.

Right is right, wrong is WRONG.

Any individual holding and expressing views that reasonably can be classified as racist is NOT qualified to sit on the highest court of the land. Or any court, for that matter. As they say in judicial circles: RES IPSA LOQUITUR- "THE THING SPEAKS FOR ITSELF".

It's time for the double standard to stop. Racism is objective, not subjective. Let's let this be the first step in putting this behind us. No more cowards. And no more racism.

Meanwhile- North Korea festers and becomes ever more bellicose. Let's hope someone on our side is taking it seriously. More as the events unfold.

Pray for peace.

M.C.

REPUBLICAN LAPDOGS

2009-05-27T18:18:00.000-07:00

The President has nominated Judge Sotomayor to replace Souter. She has been overruled by the USSC numerous times. She is adjudged by almost everyone as a VERY liberal judge. And the 'Pubbies say---no filibuster!

Democrats know how to wield power, the Republicans never seem to learn the lesson.

Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin---Thou are weighed in the balance and are found wanting.

Republicans should STAND- FIGHT -WIN, as they seek and cultivate the natural allies they have in conservative republicans.

Alas, if it could be so.

M.C.

Rahm Rapture

2009-05-20T19:12:00.000-07:00

Some things need no words of explanation- such as this from the Lucianne.com site.

M.C.

What Next?

2009-05-17T10:59:00.000-07:00

THIS week, VEEP Biden gives away his 'unknown location', the President laughs at a disabled person being made fun of (by a lesbian), and to his credit (it's not all downhill, sorta) decides military tribunals are not a bad idea after all. He also changes his mind about releasing 'torture pictures', as release of them may 'hurt us' in the Muslim world! You think? And maybe, just maybe....they aren't as extreme as he expected, therefore disproving the point that terrible things happened in the Bush days. And maybe, just maybe, he is rethinking his 'torture' position, too.

One thing about a narcissist, when they feel their image is threatened in a real way, they will reverse course.

They have to realize it, though. It may come as a shock, but the POTUS is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Welcome to the decline and fall of the "Roman Empire", 21st century style.

M.C.

SUNSPOTS AND CICADAS

2009-05-12T19:49:00.000-07:00

We read recently that some scientist has announced that he has determined that cicadas are not following their usual patterns in emerging in broods (ie., 5 yrs, 11 years, 19 years, etc). The reason he had deduced behind this disruption?

Picture Source: http://www.cicadamania.com/gallery.html
Joe Green: Tibicen resonans, Florida, 2007

Global warming. Of course.

Of course...it has been well established that the brood emergence patterns also follow another cycle...the sunspot cycle. And of late, there has been a dirth of sunspots, fewer than has been seen (for longer periods) than in the lifetime of any living scientist. One wonders, could it be the (already established correlation) SUNSPOT cycle that is influencing the cicadas instead?

However, ala "wheels within wheels"...it also turns out (largely unremarked in the print and BIG media) that the sun is emitting more energy than it has in along time, also (since sunspots are cooler than the rest of the sun's surface, this seems counter intuitive- until you consider the energy being conserved in the solar thermal cycle by the reduction in sunspots is being expressed in enhanced thermal output!). Could it be...?

Could it be...enhanced solar thermal output is leading to...global warming!? The NATURAL CYCLE that many have already well documented, for years. Not caused by man? Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize co-winner, soon to be memorialized by REPUBLICANS in his home state...is wrong!?

How could this be?

Maybe the answer lies in bugs and (solar) BTUs, after all.

"There is nothing new under the sun...all is vanity."

M.C.

The New Bigotry and Pod Thinking

2009-05-08T10:41:00.000-07:00

Here is an article by Charles Winecoff, whom I just read the first time. It speaks eloquently and the art work is dynamite (unfortunately you can't see it all here, so the link is pasted in..take a look!). The article is copied here for reading and comment. Here is the image that says it all:

So sadly true.

M.C.

__________________

Here is the link:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/cwinecoff/2009/05/04/denied-bigotry-of-the-obamatrons/#more-113614

By Charles Winecoff
Recently, at the office (a place I sometimes affectionately refer to as Obama Central), I made the mistake of printing out a Washington Post editorial that questioned the foreign policy expertise of our new Commander-in-Chief. By the time I got to the printer to pick it up, someone else had already seen it - and stamped “DENIED” across the top of the page in red ink. Next to that was scrawled, “RIGHT WINGER GO HOME.”
The first thing that went through my mind was: cross burnings. The second was: children are evil (my workplace is overrun by hundreds of twentysomethings).

I tried to be rational. Whoever defaced the page had no way of knowing who had printed it out - just as I had no idea who the defacer was - so it wasn’t personal. Still, it was hurtful.
And it was bigoted. The defacer didn’t know anything about me - my political affilitation, my sex, my race, nothing. Die hard Democrats read mainstream editorials, don’t they? So much for the good will of Dave Matthews’s “American Prayer” starring Idi Amin and Perez Hilton - and Michael Moore’s patronizing, post-Election email exhorting his followers to be kind to their Republican friends (as if they have any).
I’ve been the object of hate before. As a teenager, holding my black boyfriend’s hand in Greenwich Village, a truck swerved to hit us while we waited to cross the street. To be honest, I prefer that kind of hate. It’s direct, out in the open, and in response to an action - in that case, our hand-holding - not in response to a thought. Had I committed a hate crime without realizing it?
As I headed back to my office, images of the Ku Klux Klan, going after people they didn’t know in the middle of the night, raced across my brain. Then I had to stop myself. And chuckle. There was no comparison.
But my gut kept telling me there was. Whoever stamped ”DENIED” across my document clearly felt justified in defacing it. Though petty, this was a hostile act - another tiny blow in the insidious war on free thought. And one thing I’ve noticed in the stifling PC smog of LA: the Obama generation doesn’t think twice about openly ridiculing folks who don’t follow in lockstep. They’re still acting like there’s a Texan in the White House. They can’t let go. They don’t want to. Because, like the believers of a certain 7th century ideology that’s made a big comeback in recent years, their objective is not, despite claims to the contrary, to coexist. To quote Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett, it’s “to rule.”
Instead of gossiping at the water cooler, today’s privileged jugend hover in packs around TV monitors to mock the usual suspects - poor old Sarah Palin, the Tea Partiers, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Miss California (chivalry is deader than dead). Together, they telegraph their warning to anyone who might disagree: don’t.
They believe Loose Change is an important documentary, Al Franken a natural for the Senate, and Arlen Specter a hero. They judge people not for their principles or achievements, but by the letter that comes after their name. The one coworker I saw who dared walk the Yes We Can-festooned halls in a McCain T-shirt last fall got singled out by a supervisor (”Are you serious?”). The answer? Of course not - the tee had been donned as a joke.
Kids today. They enjoy complete freedom to open their pieholes at the slightest brainfart. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. That should be a benefit of freedom. Yet despite the apparent spontaneity of their farts, a strange uniformity pervades.
To their credit, Americans born after 1980 seem to be almost entirely free of old-time prejudices like homophobia - kudos to Will & Grace, I guess - though it’s hard to tell where genuine acceptance ends and “Vote No on Prop 8″ fanaticism begins. Where I work, no one voted “yes” - at least no one would say so - so we’ll never know if “DENIED” would have been stamped across a human forehead.
But too much of a good thing, even media-sanctioned tolerance, becomes oppressive. “You’re so negative” is an accusation I’ve heard many times since moving to Hollywood, usually in response to less than total elation about the release of the latest Spiderman sequel or the nasal squeals of the current American Idol. Whatever happened to critical thinking?

I used to think its absence here was an organic deficiency of the West coast. Back East, where the weather stinks, people spend more time indoors, are more likely to pick up a book and exercise their own imaginations. In the easy, optimistic climate of California, kids grow up tanning and surfing, and the sky is generally blue. Irony gets bleached out. Life is good. Why bring everyone down? Opinion - “DENIED.”
Sometimes I wish I had been born in Malibu.
But lately - okay, since the Election - I’ve begun to suspect that the rejection of critical thinking is more than a regional custom. Forget the swine flu, anti-thought is a viral pandemic - and it’s spreading fast. As Marge the Palmolive lady used to say, “You’re soaking in it!”
Twenty-somethings are fond of declaring, “It’s a free country!” But is it? Really? And what exactly does that notion mean to them, anyway? Because from what I can tell, they believe the First Amendment is a natural phenomenon which, unlike the climate, will never change. At the same time, these kids - who see nothing odd about surrounding themselves with creepy, halo’d icons of The One - mock folks who actually make the effort to exercise their right to free speech on talk radio, at Tea Parties, and at workplace printers.
Talk about a false sense of security. They think this double standard is perfectly normal.
As a young’un said to me not long ago, “But Republicans… aren’t they, like, evil?” When I was growing up, the only Republican I knew was my grandfather - and he used to describe himself simply as a “skeptic.” Party affiliation aside, I always thought skepticism was supposed to be a good thing.
Not anymore.
As the media distracts us with constant fear-mongering about hate speech, racism, and possible assassination attempts on our President - by rightwing nuts, of course - a virulent new strain of politically correct intolerance has risen swiftly and silently in our midst: an all-out intifada against the individual.
In 1950, journalist Edward Hunter coined the term “brainwashing” to explain how some American POWs were converted to Communism during the Korean War. Today, the practice is commonplace. In 2009, every time an American turns on a television, he faces non-stop identity assault from a rat-tat-tat of guilt-inducing messages and innuendo: America is bad; America is collapsing; America should become more European; America deserves to be put in its place; America must bow to the wise and humble global community (especially if it’s Third World).
I’ve talked with otherwise well-educated twenty- and thirty-somethings who seem unable (or unwilling) to distinguish between the cavalier anti-war ravings of Madonna in concert and the published propaganda of Hillary Clinton (Making History) and Barack Obama (The Audacity of Hope). While it’s reassuring to know that Gen Oers still know how to read, it’s chilling to observe how readily they accept the words attributed to their idols at face value.
For reading these books, they are validated by their peers, complimented for their good taste - and tacitly discouraged from turning a critical eye to even a single sentence. No surprise, then, that brainwashing is also known as “thought reform,” with social acceptance the dangling carrot. The thoughts in these books are “good.”
This is the exact opposite of how Gen Oers are taught to view literature by conservative thinkers like Mark Levin and Ann Coulter (who, BTW, actually write their own books). In these cases, the same kiddies are emboldened to ridicule, condemn and name call - no reading required. The thoughts in these books are “bad.”
Guilt also plays a major part in brainwashing. Everyone from gay activists and environmentalists to socialized medicine zealots use it to browbeat people into submission (like any of us need more that). If you resist their arguments, then you must: a) be suffering from internalized homophobia; b) own shares in Exxon, or c) secretly want minorities to die waiting to get into the ER.
Brainwashing can only work in an environment of isolation - and there’s no lonelier place for a conservative than New York, San Francisco or Hollywood. Hopefully, that’s changing as many of us are starting to speak out. Still, the Left controls the arsenal of psychological weapons (film, print and digital media) used to break people down.
The challenge for young people is that, unless they already know someone who at least identifies as a “classical liberal,” their malleable minds will be hard pressed to discover the joy of civil discourse or rational debate. They won’t be exposed to any.
In 1983, best-selling shrink M. Scott Peck published his second book, People of The Lie. In it, he tells the stories of several patients whom he came to believe could be clinically diagnosed as “evil” - a character disorder he describes as “militant ignorance.” According to Peck, an evil person prefers to psychologically destroy others rather than face his (or her) own faults, exhibits zero empathy towards his targeted scapegoat, and enjoys falsely labeling other people as evil.
You know, like spending eight years comparing people you disagree with to Hitler.

Self-deception, Peck states, is the number one risk factor for evil, easier to maintain in groups - like MoveOn.org, Al-Qaeda, Queers for Palestine, Rachel Maddow’s Facebook page - than individually. Ironically, Hollywood has long told us this sort of mass bias is wrong. Just watch Gregory Peck and Dorothy McGuire in Gentleman’s Agreement, Ginger Rogers and Ronald Reagan in Storm Warning, Tom Hanks in Philadelphia, Halle Berry and Billy Bob Thorton in Monster’s Ball, the entire Screen Actors Guild in Crash… the list goes on and on.
So when did groupthink suddenly become cool? When did words start meaning the opposite of what they were intended to mean? When did “progressive” come to mean ”do nothing,” and “conservative” mean “progressive” (i.e. “do something”)? When, as Andrew Klavan has so eloquently pointed out, did the belief system of the angels get reduced to the two-syllable mantra: “Shut up?”
When did dissent become a de facto hate crime?
In Don Siegel’s classic sci-fi flick, Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), the citizens of Santa Mira, California, are gradually replaced in their sleep by emotionless impostors - the proverbial “pod people.” The film is often interpreted as an allegory for Communism and McCarthyism (a tactic first reviled, then hijacked, by the Left). But Body Snatchers is more relevant than ever - right here, right now.
You walk the halls, wander the streets, visit the homes of other two-legged beings who appear to resemble you on the surface, yet seem to have no clue you exist as a separate person, mentally, emotionally or spiritually. These seemingly intelligent beings talk about you, in front of you, as if you were in another room, automatically assuming you are of like mind. (Maybe they just never read Miss Manners.)
If you say something to correct them - or just ask a question about their leader - they blink, not comprehending. You repeat the question. They smile at you wanly. It does not compute. Welcome to Santa Mira, a.k.a. Hollywood, a shifty dreamscape, where nothing is exactly as it seems, where a marine layer rolls in every night, blanketing its sleeping citizens in a fine vapor of paranoia.
Does anyone know the way to San Jose?
Back in the harsh reality of daylight, the O generation carries on, oblivious to its own cruelty or mortality. As long as they have Dancing with the Stars and Tivo, all is well with the world. Are these overgrown, enlightened rejects from Village of the Damned the new ugly Americans? If so, they are primed to be thrown over, fatally, themselves. By whom? I think we all know - and it ain’t The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
At the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Kevin McCarthy and Dana Wynter have managed to escape pod-dom by staying awake for days on end. Exhausted, Wynter finally succumbs. When she awakens, changed, she gives McCarthy some icy advice: ”They were right… Stop acting like a fool, and accept us.” If she’d had a rubber stamp, she might have branded him - “DENIED!”
McCarthy flees, desperate for human help, lamenting in voiceover how “a moment’s sleep, and the girl I loved was an inhuman enemy bent on my destruction.” Watching the attractive people I see everyday, working out at the gym, driving their Smart Cars, grabbing a Starbucks, watching CNN, listening to their iPods - and talking about Hope - I know how he feels.
When did they all fall asleep? When are they going to wake up? Perhaps when they learn, the hard way, that freedom is not just another convenience.
Meanwhile, try not to express a dissenting or individual thought - and don’t gasp if one of them lashes out viciously at a friend who steps out of line - because that’ll clue them in that you’re still human.
And then they’ll come after you.

Cinco de Obama or Bomber Biden

2009-05-05T19:21:00.000-07:00

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage." --Lord Alexander Tytler on the fall of the Athenian republic.

Wow---that about sums it up, doesn't it? My wife found this gem and I think I can hardly add to it. So I won't!

In addition to the great historical context this quote frames for us, here is something contemporary and much more banal (is there is any longer a distinction in this Administration?) from our President (imagine how the 4th estate would have greeted this from GW Bush !):

In trying to enagage in a little word play with the Mexican Ambassador about Cinco de Mayo, yesterday (May 4), the President says Monday was "Cuatro de Cinco". When questioned about what he meant, he said it again, apparently never realizing what he was trying to say was "Cuatro de Mayo"---as silly as THAT was. A great intellect, truly and bilingual to boot. Not.

Meanwhile, the Veep says everyone should avoid trains and planes, so as to avoid H1N1- and then proceeds to take the train home! Such an example for the Nation. His spokesman says (really!), Joe Biden misconstrued what he meant to say.

Say what?

M.C.

AUDACITY

2009-04-12T20:55:00.000-07:00

During the campaign much was heard about 'the audacity of hope'. Well, 'audacity', at any rate, was on display this week big time...and maybe there was some hope, of the most cynical, Orwellian kind.

Or, maybe, Obama thinks he is a Jedi master making use of "Jedi mind tricks" on what he thinks of as the dim (Dhimmi?) witted masses? :

"You didn't see the President bowing before the Saudi King. Move along, nothing to see here."

The Administrations says that the President is taller than the King and he was making a two handed handshake- it just LOOKED like he was bowing. Paraphrasing Mark Steyn, who are you going to believe,the Obama spin machine,or your lying eyes? It's all there in living color, and no one has suggested the images have been doctored. Audacious, all right. and underhanded (no pun intended).

This really is monumental arrogance, cynicism and perversity all rolled into one. And, as the old Carpenters song lyrics went, "We've only just begun...".

More on this another time. Ponder this...why did he bow. And what are the Saudis to make of the bald-faced lying denial?

Nothing at all, methinks. Par for the Dhimmi course.

M.C.

Third World American Government

2009-04-04T14:50:00.000-07:00

So what does this week bring? More proof of the 'Third World-ism' of our government.

The Department of State issues a sex-line number instead of the right number for a call in to Hillary. Most telling is that the DOS spokeman seemed to think this is not a big deal (maybe in the current administration that really is the case).

Obama bows low to the Saudi king. Hmmm, wouldn't one expect a Muslim to do that? And the Old Media portrayed BUSH as being beholden to the House of Saud!

Obama refuses to release the proof of his nativity...while lawsuits pile up.

His staff all drive foreign cars, while he pillories American automakers, issuing illegal edicts (that are only illegal if someone objects, I suppose). Auto de Fey at work. No pun intended!

In case you haven't caught on yet, these embarrassments are a DELIBERATE attempt to 'run down America' overseas and at home and a deliberate attempt to create turmoil and unrest.

Meanwhile the media ogles Michelle's toned arms and is all agog- she touched the Queen! Gasp!

Bread and circuses.

And the people's representatives...do nothing. All it takes for evil to triumph is for men of good will to do nothing.

And nothing is being done.

The final note: Carla Bruni-Sarkozy gets my vote for adult of the week for not kissing the Prez. Maybe class does tell?

M.C.

Another Week, Another Faux Pas

2009-03-15T18:38:00.000-07:00

And so it goes.

More presidential nominations withdrawn. More international offenses given (this from the President who was going to 'revitalize' (or should we say 'reset') our relations overseas). Perhaps the mistranscription of the the Russian word for 'reset' as 'overcharge' is highly appropriate, especially in light of the 'stimulus' porkage, er , package. One wonders which heads rolled over that. At least Hillary had grace under pressure, and made a laugh of it (at Obama's expense?).

The lapdog 5th Estate is beginning to get a tad uneasy. As are a number of prominent Democrats. And if the Republicans can either transform Steele or discard him and find someone to better serve, then they may truly become a phoenix rising from the ashes. Time will tell. Between Obama's seeming lack of competence and Steele's foot in mouth disease, one wonders (and remember, I hailed the selection of Steele!). Maybe the education revolution that moved away from the three R's and competition is bearing it's bitter fruit in our 'rising, new' national leadership? Lots of self esteem and no common sense and poor judgement to boot. But wait, it'll all resolve after the commercial. Isn't every (TV) problem solved in 48 minutes of air time, or less?

In the meantime, North Korea has moved to a war footing, and other than one day of alarming press coverage...who is taking notice?

Stay tuned.

M.C.

In Space, No One Can Hear You...LIE.

2009-02-28T16:48:00.000-08:00

Recently there was a report of two satellites that collided 'over Siberia'. One was described as 'an old Russian military satellite' and one was as an 'Iridium Comsat'.

Over Siberia. Convenient.

Consider for a moment (as Rod Serling would say) the vast empty square miles of space around the earth. Much was made of how crowded the orbital lanes have become.

But they aren't. There are millions and millions of square miles of empty space, and only thousands of satellites and other objects circling the globe. Sounds like a lot of objects, doesn't it?

But then consider that space is 3 dimensional. Consider that the only other time there was a collision, it was intentional on the part of the Chinese. The only other time.

So, how likely was it that this really was an accident? Two satellites, occupying a few square feet among billions of square feet of empty space. And, I never saw mention in the media that one was in a polar orbit , one in a more inclined equatorial orbit...moving at right angles to one another, more or less- making it all the more unlikely that they would manage to occupy exactly the same space at exactly the same time! Over Siberia.

NOT LIKELY.

This 'accident' was more likely either a test on the part of the Russians of a space based weapon system---and/or a warning. With the increased tension between Russia and the US as backdrop, this seems a more likely scenario than an accident.

The US Military subsequently says that there is no danger of space debris from the 'accident' entering the atmosphere after several events where 'meteors' were seen, even in broad daylight, in the days after the event. At the same, time, the FAA issues a NOTAM that airlines and other pilots should be aware that space debris is indeed a possible danger to aircraft.

So, who is credible, who is telling the truth?

I'll go with the FAA...and reason that the military has every motivation to maintain this was an accident. Even when common sense says it almost certainly was not.

And, now, we hear nothing, not a peep, ever though it was reported at the time that thousands of pieces of space debris that could be very dangerous were created by this collision.

Where is the best place to hide, even in space?

In plain sight.

Remember, in space no one can hear you...LIE.

MC

BOTH SIDES NOW...NOT!

2009-02-14T11:27:00.000-08:00

As the bodies pile up around President Obama's nomination process (latest and most principled withdrawal is Judd Gregg), one notices the opprobrium heaped on the President and his team, just as happened with George Bush.

No, we don't.

'Nuff said on that topic.
_____________________________________________________________________

Diana West, one of the best contemporary/political writers around, wrote recently about, what I believe, is one of the biggest 'hiding in plain sight' secrets---what happened to our economy? WHY did it suddenly collapse? I noticed the timing in the article...Near September 11, 11am on the day in question...likely no coincidence.

As you read the article she wrote, which I have copied here in it's entirety and exactly as written, ask yourself...where did the $550,000,000,000 go?

Diana asks, why no ones cares, cares to know, who did this?

I think 'our' government knows. Read this, it's the most important article you'll have read in a long time, and likely to stay that way until the truth is known.

Here is the article :

Who Attacked Our Economy? Why Does No One Care? by Diana West

Thursday, February 12, 2009

I want you to read something. It's a snatch of transcript from a Jan. 27 C-SPAN interview with Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., that has received zero coverage in what we think of as the mainstream media.

To set the C-SPAN scene, Kanjorski is harkening back to the middle of last September, when, as it happens, John McCain was enjoying his brief lead in the presidential polls and the economy as we knew it was imploding. Here's what Kanjorski said:
"I was there when the Secretary (of the Treasury Hank Paulson) and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve (Ben Bernanke) came those days and talked to members of Congress about what was going on. It was about Sept. 15. Here's the facts, we don't even talk about these things.
"On Thursday at about 11 o'clock in the morning, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous drawdown of money market accounts in the United States to the tune of $550 billion, as being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two.
"The Treasury opened up its window to help. It pumped $105 billion into the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there, and that's what actually happened."
Kanjorksi continued:
"If they had not done that, their estimation was that by 2 o'clock that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the United States, would have collapsed the entire economy system of the United States and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.
"Now we talked at that time about what would happen if that happened. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it. And that's why when they made the point we've got to do things quickly, we did."
These are staggering revelations. (Watch them yourself here.) Given their sudden appearance out of the blue, you have to wonder, first, could they possibly be true? If so, why weren't we the people told about this $550 billion electronic run on the banks? And why haven't we heard a word of it since? Even since Kanjorski spoke on C-SPAN last month, there has been scant MSM coverage. The story's biggest exposure came when Rush Limbaugh played the audio and analyzed it on the air this week. Otherwise, the story has been little more than blogfodder, appearing at places such as Politico.com and the Economist blog with little comment. Writing at Portfolio.com this week, Felix Salmon quite decisively dismissed the whole story as "fiction."
Is it? If what Kanjorski says is "fiction," Americans, particularly Americans in Kanjorski's 11th district of Pennsylvania, need to know. After all, this isn't a story that just goes away on its own, particularly not when Paul Kanjorski is chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee. Of course, incredible as Kanjorski's revelations were, almost equally incredible was the interviewer's failure to ask the next obvious question of national interest: Who or what was responsible for that electronic run on the banks "to the tune of $550 billion"?
That's where Limbaugh went with the story. "Now, let's assume for a second here that elements of this are true," Limbaugh said of Kanjorski's statement. "Let's assume that there was a $550 billion ... electronic run on the banks and money market accounts in one to two hours. The question is who was doing this? Who was withdrawing all this money? And the next question is why? That's where my mind starts exploding, and this is dangerous to have these explosions going this way. Could it have been George Soros? Could it have been a consortium of countries -- Russia, China, Venezuela -- countries that are eager to have Barack Obama elected because they know that will make it easier for them to continue their own foreign policies in the world?"
I've heard serious people float similar theories regarding financial attacks on our economy emanating from the Middle East, but again, who knows?
One thing we do know is that former President Bush made extremely cryptic public statements regarding the stability of our markets at this time in question last September, statements noted by Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid. These began with a Sept. 18 Bush announcement that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was stepping up its enforcement action "against illegal market manipulation." As Kincaid wondered, manipulation "by whom or what? The President didn't say." On Sept. 19, President Bush further announced that the SEC had "launched rigorous enforcement actions to detect fraud and manipulation in the market. Anyone engaging in illegal financial transactions will be caught and persecuted (sic -- good ol' W.)." Again, what was Bush talking about?
On that same day, Kincaid reports, "the SEC announced a `sweeping expansion of its ongoing investigation into possible market manipulation in the securities of certain financial institutions.'" Why? What was going on? If ever there was a vital, compelling reason for congressional hearings, Kanjorski's "electronic run on the banks" story is it.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

We will follow up on this in days to come. Stay tuned. Congressional hearings? Not a chance, now. maybe later. Time will tell.

It always does.

MC

SPOON Fed!

2009-02-07T07:33:00.000-08:00

New ideas! Change! In spite of President Obama's promises for changing the way 'Washington' does business, even I never imagined he'd go this far!

Pundits galore declaim how aweful (sic on purpose) the last two weeks have been for our new President, as nominee after nominee comes up with undisclosed tax problems.

One wonders: "How can Team Obama be doing such a lousy job of screening the candidates? How embarrassing for the President!"

Except- they aren't/it isn't. It's part of The Plan to stimulate the economy. Known as:

Stimulus Plan of Obama Nominees- SPOON.

Get it?

How wonderfully inventive and out of the box. Look at all the hundreds of thousands of dollars the President has pumped back into the economy by deliberately selecting candidates who have past tax liabilities, that, upon public disclosure, have to be paid up as a price of admission to whichever position they have been nominated for.

Brilliant!

Except...

It hasn't quite worked out that way, nomination wise---tax collection wise yes, but...

Bill Richardson should have been a warning shot across the bow that the 'strategy' needed some fine tuning. But, in spite of 'tax issues', the President got a few past the nomination process, then the whole thing went on the rocks. Great idea, although, it's more the quantity and frequency that is 'new' for this type of 'problem'. On the upside, the SPOON extends even to family members (Hilda Solis's husband). And the Daschle approach (tax on 'freebies') was really a nice touch.

But, hey...isn't this a variation on pay to play? We guess the Washington version isn't working any better than the Chicago Way.

Let's see how "Treasury Tim" plays out...maybe he is leading by example? (Irony detectors on, please).

MC

Third World America

2009-01-31T16:31:00.000-08:00

Here we are, two weeks into the Obama presidency. As the Bible says, "You will know them by their fruits". What kind of fruit is evident?

The President has to retake his Oath of Office---both he and the Chief Justice flubbed it.
In retaking it later, "in an abundance of caution"- he doesn't use a Bible, because, according to press reports, his staff couldn't find one in the White House!
The President implements a rule that lobbyists will not be selected for critical positions in his administration (without a time delay period before they are eligible)- and promptly breaks the rule, not once, but twice (the VP actually committed the second offense).
The President tells congressional leaders that he 'reserves the right to "ignore" any Executive Order that he or any past President has promulgated (translation: "I am the Law and I decide which law I obey, if any, or when I feel like it").
His first television event is on "Al-Arabiya", a network based in Egypt, Barack Hussein Obama addresses the Muslim world. In his first interview, he tells the them that we are their friends. "I have Muslims in my family", says President Barack Hussein Obama.
Meanwhile, back in the USA, a Stalinist era 'cult of personality' is developing (OK, has developed and is getting stronger) around the new President, to the point that he is portrayed by one artist as Christ entering Jerusalem on a donkey. (No comment heard from the President on this).

If this doesn't sound like 'third world-ism', let's look further afield:

Blago. Need I say more?

Michigan. Coleman v. Franken. Some counties have more votes counted than registered voters,and of course, Franken gets the "excess"votes! Plus, here we are almost 2 months after the election, and it is still not decided.

Tombstone and The Lady. One member of Congress introduces legislation to amend the Constitution so that Governors can't fill vacant Senate seats; he says this is in response to both Blago and the Caroline Kennedy 'debacle'. We think it has more to do with the latter than the former. Furthermore, to compare the NY Governor's action in not selecting Caroline Kennedy for Hillary Clinton's old seat to those of Blago, who was selling Obama's former seat, among other things---to say the actions of both Governors are somehow equivalent---is incomprehensible. Actually the big objection (unstated)is who Governor Paterson picked, moreso than who he did not. In fact, he was sending a really big message to the rest of the Democratic establishment: 'Ignore or trivialize me at your peril'. They would do well to heed this shot across the bow. Perhaps they will not?

And on it goes. We used to read about these sort of things going on in Taiwan, or the Philippines, or Africa. Now, we read about it in America.

As our economy falters; as our government throws money at problems with no real strategy; as our 'leaders' coddle our enemies and want to bring their agents from a safe place (Gitmo) to our own shores- we will being seeing more of "Third World America" in years to come.

Two bright lights , though, do shine in our present darkness. The selection of Chairman Steele for the top Republican Party post. And the fact that not one Republican voted for the stimulus package. Steele (play on his name intended) in the Republican Party, there may yet be.

If John McCain had really wanted to pull a coup and possibly, despite all the odds, win (after all, in spite of the overwhelming anti-Bush sentiment expressed in the election, and his own ineptitude or hidden agenda, he did quite well, all things considered)- Steele would have made an excellent running mate. And will. No offense to Sarah Palin (who will NOT be on the ticket in 2012).

The Alaska and Hawaii adventures will not be repeated---not the the Alaska part, anyway.

New World Order

2009-01-13T18:59:00.000-08:00

Well, shortly, it will be out with the Trilateralists and the like and in with...what? According to recent press reports, it appears that President-Elect Obama is building a coalition government. But this coalition is unlike any seen before in this country.

Carol Browner, the Obama Climate Change 'Czar', formerly DEP Secretary in Florida a few administrations ago and subsequently EPA Secretary in the Clinton administration, has been revealed as a member of the Socialist International! Any mention of this was immediately disappeared down the memory hole by removal of Ms. Browner's name from the SI website once the 'word' was out (although there is still a picture on the site, as of yesterday, of Ms. Browner receiving an award). Interestingly, references to Ms. Browner also disappeared from the Gore and Audubon websites. The old Clinton memory hole is at work in these modern times! Tepid efforts at mitigation were mentioned in some reports, such as "even Tony Blair" is a Socialist. Interesting. The mention is sanitized from the SI and fellow traveler websites but, then the now 'non-existent' Socialist membership is defended. Mixed signals and opinions, one supposes.

Further to the point, Hilda Solis, Labor Secretary nominee has apparently been outed as either a member of, or associated with, the CPUSA. That's right- the Communist Party of the United States. Hmm, sorta makes sense, Labor Secretary and all that. Marx would think it apropos.

And, in the related and always interesting field of Democratic nominees gaffes and slip-ups*, it turns out that Obama's nominee for the Treasury post failed to pay quite a few years of self employment taxes until just before he was nominated. This is however not expected to be a problem since he paid them (and the Democrats are in the majority, after all). One wonders---did he not have the money to pay the taxes, and if so, where did the money suddenly come from? Or, if on the other hand, he didn't think he HAD to pay the taxes, what does that say about him as the Treasury nominee? (* Were this a Republican nominee, charges would be
proferred ever after withdrawal---and of course, the Republican nominee would withdraw!)

Of course, Bill Richardson had to withdraw as a nominee due to a 'hiding in plain sight' lingering investigation that the "Obama vetting team" couldn't "see" ( there is more here than meets the eye, don't believe for a second that the Chicago candidate's team didn't know about this!).

One would think that 'nomination confirmation hearings' would imply a fact gathering process and suspension of final opinions or the taking of positions on the matter until the hearings are at least underway, yes? Not for some prominent REPUBLICANS who felt compelled to announce yesterday and today that they will not oppose Eric Holder's nomination as AG. I guess that will be a pro forma hearing? So much for 'Advise and Consent'! I guess 'Loyal Opposition' emphasis on loyal, i.e. lapdog loyal, is the trend with 'pubbies these days?

And one last note, in the 'why was that questions asked department'. Why did Senator Kerry ask Hillary Clinton in her confirmation hearing what she could say to detail how she would ensure (or words to that effect) that the troops are withdrawn, expeditiously, from Iraq?

Isn't her nomination for Secretary of State, not Defense?

Actually, we think her trajectory will be quite a bit different from the current expectations, over time. Keep an eye on Biden and his fortunes, there's a cross current there that will become more apparent as time goes by; more on this topic, another time.

Next time---how so many science fiction novels in the 50's and 60s have scored direct hits on their 'forecasts' for our times! And more of course.

And, so it goes.

Stay tuned.

M.C.

Quo Vadis?

2009-01-03T17:48:00.000-08:00

Quo Vadis---what's going on, where are we going? That's the question for the first days of 2009.
And it's a question that is not likely to have any clear-cut answers any time soon.

And that is why (at least one reason) Samizdat Republic (SR, for short) has been born.It's a new day. I don't just mean it's 2009 (versus 2008). Or, that we are having a changing of the guard, because of the an election- or the results thereof. It's a new America. Or rather, America as we knew it, as it has been, is gone- morphing before our eyes into something unrecognizable and largely unforeseen, and the ultimate destination...unknown.

There is a theory in climate change circles that a critical mass is reached in the atmospheric heat balance and a sudden, violent change in climate occurs. We have reached and are in the grip of just such a violent and sudden change in our culture and body politic. And, since we are in the midst of the sea change, we can't see how it will all turn out. As history has taught many times, we likely won't know when we have 'arrived' until much later. Hindsight is, as they say, 20-20. Right now, we are dangerously myopic...

What has brought this about? A few descriptors to set the frame:

Bush 1
Iraq 1
Eight years of Bill Clinton
Bush 2
Iraq 2
"Global Warming" Hysteria
"Illegal" Immigration
Guantanamo and Rendition
Hamas
Chavez, et.al.
Putin

The liberal press (drops it's pretensions of 'fairness and balance'- and the internet steps in)

Barack Hussein Obama- President Elect, and not clearly qualified by birth to hold office- the question no one in the power elite, on any side, wants to face up to.

There is more of course; any outline is just that---there are details. And that is where Samizdat Republic steps in to the frame.

Samizdat was the term used to describe a whole genre of 'secret writings' that were surreptitiously circulated in the old Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in the Cold War days. Solzehnitsyn, for example, was just one (well known) Samizdat author, whose writings such as "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch" were circulated 'underground', piece by piece and hand by hand. The writings of this author and others were proscribed by the regimes of the time. Yet, people took risks with their lives and the lives of others to circulate the Truth, and, eventually, the Truth, which never dies, yet indeed, in spite of the oppression, suppression and danger, grew stronger, set the circulators free.

Believe it or not, we are entering into that time in America, where ideas can be classified as dangerous by the state and indeed by the dominant (media) culture, and where uttering certain thoughts, discussing certain topics openly, will release the hounds of Hell on the author and those associated in any way with the 'heresy', the counter to the culture, utterances.

You think not...this is just exaggeration?

Then think on this:

Joe the Plumber, asking his question. Pilloried, 'investigated' under false pretenses.

Sarah Palin, running for V. P. (and still ,the attacks pile up)

A mayor who speaks out against 'illegal' immigration---where is he now?

The wife of a presidential candidate- dissected on the public stage.

Christians accused of 'hate crimes' for expressing their point of view (vs. Islamists who seem to be able to have their doctrines extend to the public schools in ways that would never be tolerated in regard to Christianity---even as we fight hot wars against the very same Islamists!)

I think you can see the point, even if you don't agree with it.

And this is just the tip of what is to come. People are already losing their jobs, their property and being threatened with (and actually being prosecuted for) 'hate crimes' , not only for what they say or write, but for what they think! Right now- right here- in America, the land of the free and home of the brave.

We are going to have to be more brave, because, we are already less free.

So, that's the frame for Samizdat Republic. That's what we are all about. And more. SR will address the unaddressable, discuss the undiscussable---like the Samizdat of old.In our new America---the Samizdat Republic.

Stay tuned.

M.C.