« Count Barack Dracula | Main | iPodGate »

March 31, 2009



The Republican Base:



20th Congressional District race is too-close-to call


(Monica)(There are female soldiers serving there too---how about a little somethin' somethin' for THEM?)
I second that, and if I can be of any assistance in that regard I would gladly go to Gitmo.

As for the G20 summit going on, it appears even some of the European leaders are asking Obama why he is spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave in Carson City, Nevada. Even the socialist in Europe don't understand how we could blow trillions on social welfare give away programs. Maybe he can learn from the European socialist to be more fiscally reponsible.


STEVEOK: "...As for the G20 summit going on, it appears even some of the European leaders are asking Obama why he is spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave in Carson City, Nevada..."

Easy: you guys screwed up so badly that it REQUIRES an astronomical fix. You have no one to blame but yourselves.


Neil Cavuto on Imus in the Morning, this morning we should be following the Swedish Model:)

Neil Cavuto SAABing to Imus.



Obama picks another winner!!
Have any of you seen this about Dawn Johnsen? Here's a link:

And, apparently she's teaching law at Indiana University -- so you moms or husband's of moms or children of moms who are alumn, should give your alma mater a piece of your mind about this too.


Taxpayers Kicked Out Of Capitol During Tax Debate- Iowa



The Republican Base:


Posted by: justokman | March 31, 2009 at 09:15 PM



You expect to be taken seriously by posting this?????????



STEVEOK: "...As for the G20 summit going on, it appears even some of the European leaders are asking Obama why he is spending money like a drunken sailor on shore leave in Carson City, Nevada..."

Easy: you guys screwed up so badly that it REQUIRES an astronomical fix. You have no one to blame but yourselves.

Posted by: Varecia | April 01, 2009 at 09:55 AM


Why don't you learn about which you speak before you say anything?



Talk about torture. How about lining these three up for a photo?


It seems as if the Queen is melting along with the fortunes of the Bank of England.


The GOP's Alternative Budget
President Obama offers us the option of European big government.


Today, the House of Representatives will consider two budget plans that represent dramatically different visions for our nation's future.

We will first consider President Barack Obama's plan. To be clear, this is no ordinary budget. In a nutshell, the president and Democratic leaders in Congress are attempting to bring about the third and final great wave of progressivism, building on top of the New Deal and the Great Society. So America is placed in a special moment in our history -- brought about by the deep recession, Mr. Obama's ambitious agenda, and the pending fiscal tidal-wave of red ink brought forward by the looming insolvency of our entitlement programs. If this agenda comes to pass, it will mark this period in history as the moment America turned European.

House Republicans will offer an alternative plan. This too is no ordinary budget. As the opposition party, we believe this moment must be met by offering the American people a different way forward -- one based on our belief that America is an exceptional nation, and we want to keep it that way. Our budget applies our country's enduring first principles to the problems of our day. Rather than attempting to equalize the results of peoples' lives and micromanaging their affairs, we seek to preserve our system of protecting our natural rights and equalizing opportunity for all. The plan works to accomplish four main goals: 1) fulfill the mission of health and retirement security; 2) control our nation's debts; 3) put the economy on a path of growth and leadership in the global economy; and 4) preserve the American legacy of leaving the next generation better off.

Under the president's plan, spending will top $4 trillion this year alone, and consume 28.5% of our nation's economy. His plan would mean a $1 trillion increase to the already unsustainable spending growth of our nation's entitlement programs -- including a "down payment" toward government-controlled health care and education; a $1.5 trillion tax increase to further shackle the small businesses and investors we rely on to create jobs; a massive increase in energy costs for families via cap and trade. Moreover, the Obama plan would result in an exploding deficit, a doubling of the nation's debt in five years, and an increase of that debt to more than 82% of our nation's GDP by the last year of the budget. This approach will ultimately debase our currency and reduce the living standards of the American people.

Instead of doubling the debt in five years, and tripling it in 10, the Republican budget curbs the explosion in spending called for by the president and his party. Our plan halts the borrow-and-spend philosophy that brought about today's economic problems, and puts a stop to heaping ever-growing debt on future generations -- and it does so by controlling spending, not by raising taxes. The greatest difference lies in the size of government our budgets achieve over time (see nearby chart).

While our approach ensures a sturdy safety net for those facing chronic or temporary difficulties, it understands that the reliability of this protection and the other functions of government depend on a vibrant, free and growing private sector to generate the resources necessary for it.

Here's an outline of what we propose:

- Deficits/Debt. The Republican budget achieves lower deficits than the Democratic plan in every year, and by 2019 yields half the deficit proposed by the president. By doing so, we control government debt: Under our plan, debt held by the public is $3.6 trillion less during the budget period.

- Spending. Our budget gives priority to national defense and veterans' health care. We freeze all other discretionary spending for five years, allowing it to grow modestly after that. We also place all spending under a statutory spending cap backed up by tough budget enforcement.

- Energy. Our budget lays a firm foundation to position the U.S. to meet three important strategic energy goals: reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, deploying more clean and renewable energy sources free of greenhouse gas, and supporting economic growth. We do these things by rejecting the president's cap-and-trade scheme, by opening exploration on our nation's oil and gas fields, and by investing the proceeds in a new clean energy trust fund, infrastructure and further deficit reduction.

- Entitlements. Our budget also takes steps toward fulfilling the mission of health and retirement security, in part by making these programs fiscally sustainable. The budget moves toward making quality health care affordable and accessible to all Americans by strengthening the relationship between patients and their doctors, not the dictates of government bureaucrats. We preserve the existing Medicare program for all those 55 or older; and then, to make the program sustainable and dependable, those 54 and younger will enter a Medicare program reformed to work like the health plan members of Congress and federal employees now enjoy. Starting in 2021, seniors would receive a premium support payment equal to 100% of the Medicare benefit on average. This would be income related, so low-income seniors receive extra support, and high-income seniors receive support relative to their incomes -- along the same lines as the president's Medicare Part D proposal.

We strengthen the Medicaid safety net by converting the federal share of Medicaid payments into an allotment tailored for each state's low-income population. This will enhance state flexibility and sensitivity to spending growth.

In one of the most valued government programs -- Social Security -- our budget begins to develop a bipartisan solution to the program's pending bankruptcy by incorporating some of the reforms advocated by the president's budget director. Specifically, we provide for a trigger that would make small adjustments in the benefits for higher-income beneficiaries if the Social Security Administration determines the Social Security Trust Fund cannot meet its obligations. This is a modest but serious proposal which would not affect those in or near retirement, but is aimed at helping develop a consensus, across party lines, toward saving this important retirement program. We also assure that benefits for lower-income recipients are large enough to keep them out of poverty.

- Tax Reform. Our budget does not raise taxes, and makes permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax laws. In fact, we cut taxes and reform the tax system. Individuals can choose to pay their federal taxes under the existing code, or move to a highly simplified system that fits on a post card, with few deductions and two rates. Specifically, couples pay 10% on their first $100,000 in income (singles on $50,000) and 25% above that. Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15%, and the death tax is repealed. The proposal includes generous standard and personal exemptions such that a family of four earning $39,000 would not pay tax on that amount. In an effort to revive peoples' lost savings, and to create an incentive for risk-taking and investment, the budget repeals the capital gains tax through 2010 for all taxpayers.

On the business side, the budget permanently cuts the uncompetitive corporate income tax rate -- currently the second highest in the industrialized world -- to 25%. This puts American companies in a better position to lead in the global economy, promotes jobs here at home, and strengthens worker paychecks.

We hope the administration and Democratic leaders in Congress do not distort and preach fear about our Republican plan. Some may be tempted to appeal to the darker emotions of envy and insecurity that surely run high in times like these. Yet we know Americans are stronger, smarter and prouder than this ploy assumes.

In the recent past, the Republican Party failed to offer the nation an inspiring vision and a concrete plan to tackle our problems with innovative and principled solutions. We do not intend to repeat that mistake. America is not the greatest nation on earth by chance. We earned this greatness by rewarding individual achievement, by advancing and protecting natural rights, and by embracing freedom. We intend to continue this uniquely American tradition.


By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann 04.1.2009


More than anything else, business needs a predictable environment if it is to create jobs. Changes in the regulatory environment and the tax code make it almost impossible for businesses to make investments.

Yet President Obama seems to ignore this reality. Each day’s news brings another bold and far-reaching proposal to change the fundamentals of the US economy. And each time he indulges his personal ideology with such a pronouncement, businesses all over the world cut back on their planned investment until the dust settles.

Most incredible was the fact that he chose the middle of a deep recession to announce a major tax-code overhaul.

Stressing how far-reaching the changes might be, he appointed a commission headed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to report back by early December on what the changes should be.

Assuming Obama will need several months to figure out which of its recommendations to adopt and Congress will take several more months to enact its own version, the announcement effectively leaves business up in the air for at least 12 more months — uncertain of the tax consequences of any potential investment.

Who in their right mind is going to invest significantly in new plant, equipment, services, personnel or anything else? How can you consider doing so, when you can’t know how the tax code might penalize you?

And, in the same week, Obama announced that he’d seek to regulate nonbank institutions, including those he deems to be “too big to fail” lest their collapse injure the economy. Which businesses will be included? Nobody knows.

We may not know even when the law is passed. As companies grow or merge or acquire one another, they may step over the invisible line and become “too big,” and thus subject to Obama’s regulation.

How can a firm plan on expansion without knowing what increment in its size will attract regulatory scrutiny? It’s hard enough to anticipate possible anti-trust complications — and the Justice Department is at least usually willing to consult before any merger on what its attitude will be. Obama’s leaving everybody guessing.

Growth demands investment, and investment demands stability. So the more Obama stirs the pot with his proposals and potential changes, the more he retards exactly the investment he needs to get the economy moving again.

At least Obama has toned down his rhetoric, no longer echoing JFK’s comment that “all businessmen are SOBs.” But his actions do more than his words ever did to hobble any recovery.

So why insist on pushing these “reforms” now? Because, while it might be wiser to wait until after the economy’s out of recession, it may then become politically impossible to get them through Congress.

So he’s determined to use the sense of panic to enact his changes now.

Again, he’s putting his ideological agenda ahead of the requisites of national economic recovery. We needed a pragmatic pilot; we elected an ideologue instead.


The Republican Base:


Posted by: justokman | March 31, 2009 at 09:15 PM

Speaking of base: Slimebert Smearington, Esq.


Neil Cavuto on Imus in the Morning, this morning we should be following the Swedish Model:)

Neil Cavuto SAABing to Imus.


Posted by: Ree | April 01, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Tony Powell's Blog

The Snakes In My Head Are All Named Tony

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Imus is always talking about the snakes in Charles McCord's and my head. I was tempted to show you all my snake but then I thought that might not be appropriate for the website.


Could you thank Don's minder Tony Powell for that? Now maybe Rob Bartlett and Bernard McGurk can show Tony something, like how to be funny?



I believe you were referring to this scene, and it is From Here to Eternity.


I don’t know if guys were any more masculine in the old days. Rush talks about the “feminization of the culture” and I do agree that the media is doing a good job of feminizing the culture and making society more p.c.

I’m pretty disappointed with most movies. Hollywood seems to replace talent and art with “eye candy” and sex. A scene like the one above is far sexier than many of the movies out these days.

Side-note: Today's Hollywood, many will concede, has been a major support for the Empire of Bampire, and expects pay-back with the homosexualizing of marriage and the US military etc.

Posted by: M/M | March 31, 2009 at 09:47 PM


An interesting question about so-called "erotica americana" today would be: How much of this is just standard Hollywood trash, and how much is due to Homosexual Hollywood's having "malicious fun with the heteros" while at the same time promoting its favored boychiks and their buttocks?

Side-note: Many will concede that today's Hollywood has been a major backer for the Empire of Bampire, and expects payback with the increased homosexualizing of marriage and the US military etc.

Posted by: gringoman |

Big Time Patriot

Monica, this is actually what they call torture, it's almost as ha-ha funny as what you were talking about, (maybe if they beat the beauty queens it would make the whole thing even more of a fluffy news bite): "The findings were based on an investigation by ICRC officials, who were granted exclusive access to the CIA's "high-value" detainees after they were transferred in 2006 to the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 14 detainees, who had been kept in isolation in CIA prisons overseas, gave remarkably uniform accounts of abuse that included beatings, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures and, in some cases, waterboarding, or simulating drowning. " https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/15/AR2009031502724.html?sid=ST2009031602358

You know, thousands of people died in World War 2 to keep America free from regimes like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan that would have beat and tortured people at will. I have to think that most of them would feel their sacrifice was wasted when so many people now seem able to tolerate beating and torture by Americans.


AP: Obama tax pledge up in smoke:


To be sure, Obama's tax promises in last year's campaign were most often made in the context of income taxes. Not always.

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax nearly 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01. Other tobacco products saw similarly steep increases.



MJ, you're not really expecting a radical community organizer to actually keep his word?

C'mon now.. only Conservatives are held to the word they give.




And this small-time John Murtha NON-patriot is welcome to take the terrorists into his ONW house, let them rape his family m,embers, but PLEASE keep them AWAY from the REST of US!

I have no problems beating or making listen to MAdonna tapes or a little water boarding for asshats who behead their captives live on Youtube.

Sorry if I feel avbsolutely no compassion for these creeps. In fact I feel nothing but hatred and disgsut for them.

How base and "unfeeling" of me, you LIEberal touchy-feelies!

Here's one more for ya: AMERICA FIRST!!!!



A Time for Choosing


You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.


They should at LEAST allowed her to sic some dogs on the detainees or shock their genitals...


Testimony of illegal alien care from 1 Florida hospital



Why Is Rick Wagoner Fired and Nancy Pelosi Still Working?


Apparently, it's OK for Obama to fire the head of General Motors, but Bush can't fire his own U.S. attorneys.

It is generally agreed that the Obama administration's demand that Rick Wagoner resign as chairman of General Motors is the price of GM's accepting government money.

To promote the sales of GM vehicles, Obama says the government will stand by your GM car warranty. And all the taxpayers will get a lube job. The new GM owner's manual will come with a disclaimer: "Close enough for government work."

Now that we're all agreed that the government can make hiring and firing decisions based on infusions of taxpayer money, I can think of a lot more government beneficiaries who are badly in need of firing.

Just off the top of my head, how about Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and everybody at the Department of Education?

How about firing all the former Weathermen, like Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn and Mark Rudd, whose university salaries are subsidized by the taxpayer?

Nearly every university in the country accepts government money. Is there any industry in America more in need of some "restructuring" than academia? What's Berkeley's "business plan" to stop turning out graduates who hate America?

And what is Obama's justification for keeping Shirley M. Tilghman as president of Princeton University as long as Princeton employs prominent crackpot Peter Singer?

Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton's Center for Human Values, believes parents should have the right to kill newborn babies with birth defects, such as Down syndrome and hemophilia, and says there is nothing morally wrong with parents conceiving children in order to harvest them for spare parts for an older child -- or even for society to breed children on a massive scale for spare parts.

His views on these issues are so extreme I'm surprised Singer hasn't been offered a position in the Obama cabinet yet. Perhaps he paid his taxes and was disqualified.

Singer compares the black liberation movement to the liberation of apes, saying we must "extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species." (Imagine if Rush Limbaugh had said that and then go lie down for 20 minutes.)

The esteemed professor Singer also believes sex with animals is acceptable and has no objections to necrophilia -- provided the deceased gave consent when still alive. We're still waiting to hear his views on sex with dead animals. Especially me, as I have no plans for next weekend.

Doesn't a "new vision" for Princeton -- which benefits from massive taxpayer subsidies in the form of student loans and government grants -- require firing the president of Princeton? That university is clearly teetering on the brink of moral bankruptcy.

When is the government going to get around to firing 99 percent of public school superintendents? They're clearly turning out an inferior product -- i.e., America's public school graduates -- as compared to some of the foreign models now available.

In New York City, spending on public schools increased by more than 300 percent between 1982 and 2001, coming in at $11,474 per pupil annually -- compared to about $5,000 for private schools.

But in 2003, a New York court ruled that graduates of New York City's public schools did not have the skills to be "capable of voting and serving on a jury." (Worse, some kids coming out of New York high schools are so stupid they don't even know how to get out of jury duty.)

If Obama can tell GM and Chrysler that their participation in NASCAR is an "unnecessary expenditure," isn't having public schools force students to follow Muslim rituals, recite Islamic prayers and plan "jihads" also an "unnecessary expenditure"? Are all those school condom purchases considered "necessary expenditures"?

Illegal aliens cost the American taxpayer more than $10 billion a year, net, in Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, free school lunches, prison, school and court costs. And yet cities, counties and states across the nation are openly refusing to enforce federal immigration law against illegal aliens -- all while accepting billions of dollars of stimulus money on top of a litany of other federal payouts.

Shouldn't somebody be fired over this? Like maybe Geraldo Rivera?

How about hauling San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom before a congressional committee and firing him? In fact, just being named "Gavin Newsom" should be grounds for dismissal. San Francisco is getting $18 million of stimulus money -- to say nothing of its residents who receive federal money in the form of Social Security payments, government grants, welfare payments, federal highway funds and on and on and on.

Doesn't PBS take federal funds? Obama should really ask Big Bird to step down. While we're at it, shouldn't Tim Geithner be fired?

Now that the government owns everything, there's no end to the dead wood that can be cleared out.

Except the problem is -- as this very partial list demonstrates -- most of the dead wood exists only because of the government in the first place. Capitalism has its own methods of clearing out dead wood, which the government keeps preventing by forcing the taxpayer to bail out capitalism's losers.


US:Dunkin Donuts Beats Sharia Loving Muslim


An American Muslim Dunkin Donuts franchisee who had refused to sell pork products has given up his battle against Dunkin Donuts. Score one for the good guys!!

Dunkin' Donuts operator gives up franchise in pork battle
By Ameet Sachdev | Tribune staff reporter
April 1, 2009
An Arab-American owner of a Chicago-area Dunkin' Donuts store has to give up his franchise after he lost his long-running legal battle with the restaurant chain over his religious objections to selling pork products.

A lawyer for Walid Elkhatib said Tuesday that his client is in the process of removing Dunkin' Donuts signs from his Westchester outlet, but apparently not fast enough for the company.

Dunkin' Donuts went to federal court in Chicago on March 27 to stop Elkhatib, 59, from using the company's trademarks and other proprietary materials.

The company's lawsuit came two weeks after a federal jury found that the chain did not discriminate against Elkhatib for refusing to renew his franchise agreement because he declined to sell breakfast sandwiches with bacon, ham or sausage.

The dietary restrictions of Elkhatib's Muslim faith forbid him from eating or handling pork. When he decided to go into the restaurant business, his faith was one of the reasons why he invested in Dunkin' Donuts in 1979. The chain did not introduce breakfast sandwiches until 1984.

For nearly 20 years, Dunkin' Donuts accommodated his religious beliefs, even providing him signs for his store that said, "No meat products available," Elkhatib asserted in court documents. But in 2002, the company reversed course and told him it would not renew his franchise agreement if he did not sell its full line of products.

Elkhatib sued the company but because he is not an employee of Dunkin' Donuts, he could not sue under federal laws banning religious discrimination in the work place. Instead, he invoked a law that bars racial and certain forms of ancestry discrimination in the making of contracts.

A Chicago federal judge rejected Elkhatib's claim, finding that it was a religious rather than a racial claim. But in 2007 an appellate court allowed the case to go to trial, finding that Dunkin' Donuts did not consistently apply its rules on franchise holders. In fact, Elkhatib's lawyer found a Chicago location that did not sell breakfast sandwiches with pork because many of the customers followed Jewish dietary laws that ban the consumption of pork products.

Elkhatib's franchise agreement expired in April 2008, but Dunkin' Donuts allowed him to keep operating the store until the end of the trial.

After the four-day trial ended March 13 in favor of Dunkin' Donuts, Elkhatib continued to use its trademarks although his franchise agreement had expired, the company said in its suit. Elkhatib also has not returned company operating manuals and other materials despite repeated request, the company said.

Elkhatib's lawyer, Robert Habib, said his client will end his association with Dunkin' Donuts, but he has a 10-year lease on the property and owns the equipment.

"He plans to continue to operate a restaurant," Habib said. "Walid will survive."


Radical Feminism on the March

You simply won’t believe these outrageous quotes until you read them yourself:

Mothers Are Losers

"The argument that women who become pregnant have in some sense consented to the pregnancy belies reality…and others who are the inevitable losers in the contraceptive lottery no more ‘consent’ to pregnancy than pedestrians ‘consent’ to being struck by drunk drivers.’"

Pregnant Women Are Fetal Containers

"The woman is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not wholly her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends. Thus, abortion restrictions ‘reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers.’"

Pregnancy Equals Slavery

"Statutes that curtail her abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest."

All of these outrageous statements were made by Dawn Johnsen, who has been appointed by President Obama to head the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice.

Courtesy of The Susan B. Anthony List




Days after GM's CEO Rick Wagoner was forced out by the Obama administration, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner left open the possibility that such moves could happen again.

In an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric, Geithner acknowledged the government has had to do "exceptional things" – citing AIG as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"We have changed management aboard," he said. "And where we've done that, we've done it because we thought that was necessary to make sure these institutions emerge stronger in the future."

When asked if he would leave open the option to pressure a bank CEO to resign, Geithner replied: "Of course."


When asked if he would leave open the option to pressure a bank CEO to resign, Geithner replied: "Of course."
Posted by: mjfell | April 02, 2009 at 01:19 AM
We should keep open the option to pressure Geithner to resign.


This is the type of torture I could get behind. Anyone who thinks these are just innocent little men sitting down there and we are just soooooo mean to them.
1. they are treated better than our own inmates here in america
2. we cannot search thier Koran, so they can hide weapons or anything else they choose, we cannot search them from the stomach down because that is their holy area.
so I ask are we really all that hard on these men?
4 of them have been free to go for over 3 years but no country to take them.
if you are so for it, move them into your home.

Then when we bring them here they can do what they have threatened to do to everyone they have come in contact with in Gitmo,
I will go into sleep for a year then find you and cut your throat and the throats of your family.

so do you really think we are soooo bad to them?
do you really think we should bring them here?

The comments to this entry are closed.