Below is an excerpt of his address:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

Justice Samuel Alito could be seen on camera shaking his head “no” and mouthing the words “that’s not true”, right around the part where Obama claimed that our interests could be dictated by “foreign entities”. 

It is rumored that even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the liberal judges nominated by Obama and who likely voted against the measure, rolled her eyes at the comment, though this isn’t confirmed.

Here is what Obama said in layman’s terms, folks…

“To hell with what the Supreme Court ruled. I disagree with it, and I’m encouraging the House and Senate to write bills to find a way to bypass the ruling, or at least find a loophole around it.”

The arrogance of this man is amazing.

According to White House insider Jamie Dupree, no sitting U.S. President in history has ever attacked the Supreme Court directly, right to their faces. 

Now, I know there may be some liberals reading this, particularly those who disagreed with the ruling, may be thinking “Yeah, it serves them right! Obama is standing up for the American people! He should get in their faces for such a stupid ruling!”

Let me ask you something… if your favorite punching bag, George Bush, had made a similar remark to the Supreme Court against their judgment on the “Roe vs. Wade” decision, what would you have said?

What would you say if Bush stated to the Justices during his State of the Union… “You know, I disagree with that ruling, so I’m going to ask the House and Senate to write bills to bypass or work their way around it.”

Admit it… you’d be screaming bloody murder and calling Bush everything from Hitler to the anti-Christ. 

Not that you haven’t been doing so already.

Obama continues to display fewer characteristics of a President of the United States, and more similarities with a third-world despot. 

And to think that we still have at least 3 more years for him to serve.

Links:

President Obama’s State of the Union Address: Tommy Christopher, Mediate.com, 01/28/10

Justice Alito Said “Not True”: CNN Video, CNN.com, 01/28/10

Osama Bin Laden has finally sent us another tape filled with his usual anti-American, “Death to America” drivel last Saturday.  The unusually short, one minute tape contained the following message:

“The message delivered to you through the plane of the heroic warrior Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a confirmation of the previous messages sent by the heroes of the September 11. America will never dream of security unless…”

Actually, you know what? To hell with Bin-Laden and what he has to say. 

Why do we even bother listening to this fool’s tapes and videos? We already know what he’s going to say. 

America is the great Satan… death to America… Israel sucks, Palestine rules… we’re going to kill you… you’ll never catch me… blah blah blah.  

Yeah, we got the message the first time.   Seriously, how many different ways is this guy going to say the exact same thing over and over again?

It looks to me like Bin Laden is starving for attention. Remember the days when Al-Qaeda only took credit for attacks that actually succeeded? Looks like those days are over.

Is Bin Laden so desperate to be noticed, that he’s actually willing to take credit for some boob who was so incompetent that he couldn’t even blow himself up, never mind a plane full of passengers? 

He really wants to take credit for a man who had to shove his explosives in his underwear to get past security and earning the moniker “The Underpants Bomber” by the American media (some individuals have even gone so far as to refer to him as “The Panty Bomber”)?

He wants to praise a man who was captured not because of our stellar security measures (you know, the one where we search grandma’s wheelchair and 5-year old Timmy’s sippy cup of water for explosives while we allow young to middle aged, nervous looking Middle Eastern men through because we don’t want to “profile” them?), but because of the Underpants Bomber’s apparent inability to follow instructions?

Really!?

This buffoon hiding in a cave does not deserve our fear… only our ridicule, our scorn and our mockery. 

The only taped message I want to hear from this guy is “Hi, this is Osama Bin Laden. I am sitting in a cave at these coordinates. Please send a tomahawk cruise missile my way.”

Otherwise, just record over the message with Bob Dylon singing, or Fran Dresner laughing, or any other annoying noise you can think of and send it back to him. 

While we’re at it, we really need to start making more fun of these guys… really making fun of them.

Have you ever seen those old World War II propaganda posters? The ones that over-exaggerated the appearances of the Germans and Japanese soldiers? We need to start doing that again.  

I want to see our cartoonists go on the attack against Al-Qaeda.    I want to see the terrorists drawn with those thick unibrows, the black beady eyes, the hook noses, the oversized turbans and long, bushy beards. 

I remember one of my favorite posters… a snarling Japanese soldier taking aim at you with a rifle, with the caption “Stop Him, and the Job’s Done”. I want to see that same poster, only with a snarling Arab terrorist with a rifle in place of the Japanese soldier.   I want to see these types of posters plastered all over our cities. To hell with CAIR.

Just as we once had not only cartoons, but songs and movies that ridiculed and de-humanized the enemy back in WWII, we need to do that again now. 

I know what some of you are thinking… won’t that just make the enemy mad? Won’t that make them hate us more?

Folks, they’re already trying to kill us. Trust me, you can’t hate anyone worse than that. 

The way I see it, if I’m going to die tomorrow because some Islamic goon blows up the building I’m in, I want to at least get my money’s worth. 

If I’m going to die, I want to die laughing at them.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to listen to some other boob make his State of the Union address…

Links:

Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for Christmas Day Bombing Attempt: Foxnews.com, 01/24/10

Stop Him, and the Job’s Done: San Francisco State University.edu

And for those of you who are concerned about the deficit, when you've got the Congressional Budget Office that says in the second 10 years this brings down the deficit by a trillion dollars, in the first 10 years it brings it down by over $100 billion, you have nothing to apologize for when it comes to talking about deficit reduction.  The irresponsible thing would have been to do nothing, and that's not what you've decided to do.  This represents the biggest step towards deficit reduction in years. 

So, I know everybody in the media is all in a tizzy -- "Oh, what's this going to mean politically?"  Well, let me tell you something.  If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, that is a fight I want to have.  If their best idea is to return to the bad policies and the bad ideas of yesterday, they are going to lose that argument.  What are they going to say?  "Well, you know, the old system really worked well; let's go back to the way it was"? 

Dem’s fightin’ words.

To paraphrase an old saying, Obama should be careful what he wishes for… he may get it. He’s left himself so wide open, that any good conservative Republican now has the opportunity to not only pick up the gauntlet, but beat him silly with it. 

Contrary to what the Obama administration and the mainstream media would have you believe, Republicans have not been advocating that we should “go back to the way it was” or “just do nothing”. Conservative Republicans believe in healthcare reform as much as he does… they just don’t want the government so heavily involved in it. 

There have been several amendments to the health care bill that were introduced by the Republicans, though most have been given little, if any, attention by the mainstream media. Here are a few that I remember from the top of my head:

Eliminating the restriction that you may only purchase health insurance in your state of residence:

This is probably one of the options you may have actually heard of. John McCain mentioned this a few times during his campaign.

The Obama administration has continuously claimed their “public health care” option (aka, government health care) would increase “choice and competition”. What they didn’t tell you was that over time, you would have no choices, as the government system would eventually put the private companies out of business. After all, who doesn’t like free health care (as long as someone else is paying for it?)

A more effective way to increase competition would be to allow citizens to purchase their insurance from companies outside of their state of residence. Now potential customers have dozens of choices, rather than just a few. More companies will be fighting to attract customers, due to the increased competition. Companies will drop their prices. They have to… they won’t have much of a choice but to devise new ways of doing business to lower their rates, or risk going under. Capitalism at work. 

Eliminating mandates that require you to purchase specific services with your health insurance that you will not actually need:

Have you ever had to purchase a health care plan that included services that you’ll never want, need or even really have anything to do with healthcare?

For example, I heard an interesting story that in the state of Connecticut, some insurance plans cover hair transplants. What if you really don’t care if you lose your hair? Baldness seems to be the new fad anyway. Should you really have to pay for that coverage?

Other examples are treatments for smoking, alcohol or drug abuse. I don’t do any of those things, so it’s unlikely I’ll need treatment for them. Why should I have to pay extra for these services if I’ll never need them?

On a slightly un-related note, my property insurance includes coverage for damage due to ice, snow or sleet. It also includes coverage for volcanic eruptions.

I live in the state of Florida. Volcanic eruptions? Really?

Bottom line… customers should have the option to reduce the cost of their insurance by removing coverage plans that they don’t feel they actually need. 

Tort Reform:

You may have heard of this one at some time as well. So what is Tort Reform? 

In a nutshell, Tort Reform places greater restrictions on how much a doctor can be sued by a patient. You may have heard stories of a patient suffering some type of malpractice or botched treatment that would cost him thousands of dollars to treat or fix.   However, rather than the doctor (or hospital) paying thousands for correcting the treatment, he is successfully sued for millions of dollars.

This isn’t counting all the numerous frivolous lawsuits that doctors face from unscrupulous patients and lawyers on top of that.

To protect themselves against the threat of lawsuits like this, doctors need to purchase liability insurance of their own, which can cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Add the extra costs for doctors who are still paying for their college and medical training, as well as overhead expenses, and you can begin to understand why the bill is so high.

Some doctors and nurses, even after having spent thousands to learn their craft, end up leaving the medical field altogether, as they’re just not able to keep up with their expenses. Tort Reform would help lower these expenses, at least against the need for liability insurance.

Allowing tax write offs for doctors on medical expenses for patients unable to pay:

This is pretty self explanatory. By law, hospitals and doctors cannot, and will not, turn away patients simply because they are unable to pay for emergency treatment or do not have insurance (so much for the “they’ll just let you bleed to death in the street” argument).   There are even signs posted all over the emergency room that state this. 

This treatment comes at a substantial loss for the doctor, who must replace equipment or supplies that he needs for future patients. Allowing doctors to write off these expenses on their taxes would be another step in lowering your bill, as they won’t need to charge extra to help cover the needed supplies. 

Allow employees to keep health insurance that they purchased from their place of employment:

It’s simple, really. Rather than depending on your place of employment for your health insurance, if you purchase it at your company… then that insurance plan is yours. You can take it with you wherever you go; even if you lose your job or simply change jobs. This way you don’t need to worry about losing a plan that you like, and being forced to change to a more expensive plan at your new place of employment, or worse, having to resort to COBRA in the event that you lose your job. 

Allow private citizens to write off their insurance expenses on their taxes:

Here’s an interesting tidbit of information… did you know that employers are allowed to write off their taxes the expenses for the insurance that they provide for their employees? 

So why shouldn’t employees, or any private citizen, be allowed to do that with their own health insurance plans as well? Just imagine how much money you could save in the long run. It would certainly be more of an incentive to purchase insurance on your own, rather than the government forcing you to pay taxes for not having it… something that the Democrats have been pushing for (some people have argued that this is actually unconstitutional, as there is no amendment that states that as an American citizen, you can be forced by the federal government to pay fees for a service that you have not purchased).

Expanded Tax-free Health Savings Accounts:

First established in 2003, these are somewhat similar to what Social Security was originally meant to be… a tax-free account that is intended for you to invest money in for the purpose of being able to use it to cover your expenses in your later years. 

However, the money that is taxed out of your paycheck for Social Security, contrary to popular belief, does not go into a private account that only you can access; it’s placed in the general fund. 

It wasn’t always like that. Once upon a time, the money was truly meant to only to support retirees, but somewhere along the way, politicians decided that they really, really needed those untouched billions of dollars that were stored away by American citizens (whether they wanted to or not), so they wrote new laws that allowed them to dip their hands in the public cookie jar for their own uses. Now Social Security is going bankrupt (if it isn’t already) and is filled with IOU’s. 

Health Savings Accounts are the partial answer to this. While not intended to serve all of your needs, they are designed to help cover your healthcare costs. This places the customer in charge of taking care of his own health care expenses. While this may seem daunting, and some would argue that they would rather have someone else take care of their healthcare for them (like the government), remember the old saying… he who pays the bills, makes the rules.

Remember, HSA’s are tax free, and only you invest money into it, unlike Social Security, which revolves more around “everyone put their money in a pot” strategy (not to mention you are forced to put money in the pot). Therefore, only you are allowed to take money out of it (I should note that while they are tax-free, you will get penalized and taxed if you withdraw the money for non-medical purposes before the age of 65). Since the money is in a private account, politicians aren’t allowed to dip their grubby paws in it either. 

Not that they may not try to anyway. They’ve tried something similar to that during the Clinton years, with private retirement plans. If the House and Senate had not been taken over by the Republicans, they may very well have succeeded. 

The president of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, actually did pull this stunt, so nothing is impossible.

H.R.3400 – Empowering Patients First Act:

This bill was introduced by the Republicans back in July 2009. You can read it for yourself by clicking the highlighted link above, or the link under the “Links” section of this article. 

I won’t even pretend that I understand everything in this bill, or that you’ll even agree with all of it. The reason I’m pointing this out is due to the numerous accusations by the Democrats and the Obama administration that the Republicans “never do anything except say no”, and have “introduced no plans of their own”. 

Of course, this bill is never mentioned in the mainstream media, so it’s no surprise that the general public buys into that claim.

So… what do all these amendments and ideas have in common?

All of them were introduced by the Republicans.

The mainstream media has given little, if any, mention of them.

Not one of these plans will increase the size and control of the government on healthcare in any way, shape or form.

Every single one of them has been rejected by the Democrats; probably because they don’t increase the size and control of the government in any way, shape or form.

Keep this in mind… the Democrats are not pushing so hard for healthcare reform because they care so much about your personal health. This is about increasing their control over your healthcare. This is about them staying in power, and they’ll accomplish this by assuring you that “they know what’s best for you”. They’ll protect you from those “evil, money hungry doctors and insurance companies”.

If they really cared about decreasing your healthcare costs, they would be looking into private market solutions, not trying to wrest control of it from you and the private market.

Remember that saying I told you earlier, “He who pays the bills… makes the rules”?

The question is… do you want to make the rules, or do you want the government to make them for you?

Links:

H.R.3400 – Empowering Patients First Act

Health Savings Accounts: Is an HSA Right for You? : Mayo Clinic Staff, Mayoclinic.com, 05/15/08

A Free-Market Cure for US Healthcare System: Rudolph W. Giuliani, 08/03/07

Remarks by the President at the House Democratic Caucus Retreat (Obama’s Speech): Whitehouse.gov, 01/14/10 (note: section quoted above is 4^th paragraph from the bottom of the speech)

Obama: I Want to Fight GOP over Healthcare: (Video) Real Clear Politics.com, 01/14/10

“I don’t foresee a scenario in which millions of people who hope to finally get some conclusion with “Lost” are preempted by the President” Gibbs stated. 

“You can quote a senior administration official” he further re-assured them.

If you needed any evidence that Americans care more about being entertained by their favorite shows than they do about concerning themselves with what’s going on in the White House, this is it. 

Sure, I can understand it to a degree. I never liked it when my favorite shows were interrupted by a president’s speech either… especially the one sitting in the White House now. I can barely stand to listen to the guy, since I know that whatever he’ll say is almost 100% bull, but I still need to, since it’s important to know and understand just what this man is up to.

Moving the SOTU speech was actually a smart strategy on Obama’s part, especially since it’s likely that the majority of these “Lost” fans are the very yahoos that put Obama into office in the first place. I once joked to a co-worker that Obama could guarantee himself a one-term presidency if he made the mistake of pre-empting “American Idol” with one of his televised addresses. Little did I know then just how close to the mark I would be.

It’s part of a strategy that Obama uses well; keep the masses happy and entertained, keep them ignorant, keep them oblivious to what’s really going on and most of all, continue to complain loudly about how mean the opposition is with their attacks against him (a tactic that has prompted me to give him the nickname “Complainer in Chief”, though I doubt I’m the first one to do so. I’ve never heard a sitting president whine about his critics as much as Obama does.).

I can’t help but think of that stanza from Nirvana’s song “Smells Like Teen Spirit”:

But never mind that. Rest easy, “Lost” fans, your show is safe for now. 

Sources and Links:

Obama’s State of the Union won’t preempt season premiere of ‘Lost’ after all: Lisa de Moraes, Washington Post.com, 01/09/10

Quit Bitching About Lost vs. State of the Union: Harry Kimball, Newser.com, 01/08/10

So… today is the anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Not that any mainstream media source will bother mentioning it. We wouldn’t want people to remember the catalyst that resulted in the bombing of Hiroshima after all, which I can guarantee you the mainstream media will cover when that anniversary rolls around. 

But do you want to know what’s even more tragic than forgetting the anniversary of a horrific attack by an enemy army? There’s an attack going on against our military at this moment, on the anniversary of Pearl Harbor, and most Americans aren’t even aware of it (no thanks to the mainstream). Worse still, the attack isn’t even being carried out by a hostile foreign nation… it’s by our own government. 

Three US Navy SEALs (Sea, Air and Land Forces) have been arraigned for thier court-martials today for what has been referred to as a “dereliction of duty”. What is this horrific offense, you ask? 

Well, it looks like the three SEALS are accused of “abusing” a terrorist that they captured back in early September. While its not yet clear as of this writing exactly when this alleged abuse took place, at some point during his detention, the terrorist claimed that he was “punched in the gut” as well as in the mouth, using his bloody lip as “evidence”. 

Now, before you get all sympathetic about this poor, abused man, let me tell you what this animal did…

Back in Fallujah in 2004, a supply convoy that was being escorted by four Blackwater security contractors was ambushed by terrorists. The contractors were killed, hacked apart, burned, then as a final insult, two of their bodies were hung on a bridge over the Euphrates River, specifically so that reporters could get a good look at them. 

The prisoner complaining that he was abused by the SEALs, Ahmed Hashim Abed, was the mastermind of that attack. Feel sorry for him now?

So, what we have here is that these SEALs are finally able to capture this guy, and in return, they get court-martialed for giving this goon a fat lip. For all we know, the guy probably punched himself in the mouth just so that he could raise this accusation. 

I know what you’re thinking. That’s insane, right? What kind of person would be crazy enough to punch himself in the face just so he could accuse someone of beating him? 

The same kind of person who flies planes into buildings.   The same kind of person who would strap a bomb to himself, wander into a crowd, scream “Allah Akbar” and blow himself up... that kind of person. It wouldn’t seem too far fetched for this guy to punch himself in the face to set his captors up. That would actually be pretty trivial to guys like this. While I can’t state this as an absolute fact, I hear that Al-Qaeda has a training manual that specifically says (some say on page 18), that if captured, accuse your captors of abuse. They may not go free, but they can at least, in their minds, put in that seed of doubt to a sympathetic public with the allegations, which could work out favorably for him in the long run during a trial. 

As most of us know, it’s much easier to make accusations than it is to prove the accuser is lying.

But let’s say that this terrorist mastermind is actually telling the truth. What if he really did get punched in the face by his captors? Of course, that’s assuming that it wasn’t done during a struggle while making an escape attempt. You know what I say to that?

Tough luck. 

Do you really expect me to feel sorry for some animal that is responsible for murdering four contractors and hanging their charred bodies on a bridge for the world to see? This guy was lucky that a fat lip was all he got. He should be on his knees and thanking Allah that it was the SEALs that captured him, and not fellow Iraqis who are not exactly known for their restraint towards their prisoners. This joker would’ve been killed a long time ago, and you can bet that the manner of death would’ve been horrible. Just ask the family members of any US soldier that was captured in Iraq.   Only one has ever come back alive, and she was rescued by us, not returned by her captors.

Split lips will heal in time. Those four contractors will never come back to their families… ever. 

Sources:

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist: Rowan Scarborough, Foxnews.com, 11/30/2009

SEALs Charged in Alleged Assault of Detainee: Gidget Fuentes, NavyTimes.com, 11/24/09

Navy SEALs May go to Prison for Giving a Fat Lip to Islamic Terrorist: Jim O’Neil, Canada Free Press, 11/26/09

Photo of Euphrates River Bridge Hanging: Foxnews.com

As if California really needed another reason to earn the title “the land of fruits and nuts”.

Although it is meant to be satirical, the movement to ban divorces in California has gained somewhat in popularity. John Marcotte, the married 38-year old father of two and the movement’s brainchild, explained that his inspiration for introducing the petition came from the passing of proposition 8, an amendment that banned gay marriage, to which the voters of California passed in 2008.

“Since California decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more.”

WELL… I guess he SHOWED US! 

Mr. Marcotte doesn’t actually give a rat’s furry rear end about “saving marriages”. He’s just doing this to prove his point… that homosexuals deserve to get married as much as heterosexuals do.   Since he didn’t get his way, he’s decided to throw a tantrum. If gays can’t marry, and those self-rightous straights are so obsessed with “saving marriages”, well damn it, we’ll just ban divorces for them.   That’ll fix ‘em! 

Reminds me of Brad Pitt’s vow that he and Angelina Jolie would never get married until gays could get married too. Glad you’re such a proponent of saving marriages, Brad. Second time’s the charm, eh?

No danger of that happening though, as they’re headed for splitsville soon anyway, if you can believe the tabloids.  I’m sure Brad won’t mind putting his marriage plans on hold. Indefinitely.

Now that we’ve established Marcotte’s reason for the petition to ban divorces, how about we discuss one way we can really help save marriages? Here’s an idea that’s been thrown around; rather than enact Sharia Law and forbid divorces, let’s make it harder to get married. 

Gay and Lesbian groups have often flaunted how successful their “marriages” are as opposed to heterosexual marriages, which have a roughly 50% divorce rate. There’s a simple reason for that… too many couples are getting married on a whim, for the wrong reasons. 

Let’s pick on Las Vegas for a minute. How many times have you heard of a couple, sometimes complete strangers, had a little too much to drink and decided to visit one of those “quickie marriage” places? Hell, Carrie Underwood even wrote a song about one (if I were to assume that she writes all of her own songs, I’d guess that the woman has serious man problems). I bet those are counted in the divorce rate.

How many teenagers get married right out of high school, before they even really know anything about their sweethearts? Out come the kids and voila… they’re added to the divorce statistic. 

Do you want to know one reason why gays and lesbians can claim that their marriages last longer and have a lower divorce rate? Probably because it’s so difficult for them to get married in the first place. As getting married is tougher, they’re more likely to make damn well sure that their respective partners are really someone that they want to get involved with for the long run. Few sane people want to go through that hassle more than once. 

However, as more and more states, particularly in New England, are allowing gays and lesbians to marry, I can guarantee you that we’re going to be seeing the homosexual divorce rates start to go up, now that marriages are getting easier for them.

So, how do we make it harder for us straights to get married?

One way is to make it mandatory for the couple to receive some type of counseling once they make their intentions known. It could be a priest, rabbi, counselor, imam, Wiccan high priestess… whatever. I don’t care. 

The important thing is, most of these people need a reality check from a neutral party who will be asking them the tough questions, such as “are you sure that you know exactly what you’re getting into? Do you really think you can handle the financial responsibilities? Just how well do you really know each other… besides how great they are in the sack? What will you do when you have kids?  How will you pay for your house? Mom and dad aren’t going to let you live with them forever. How will you feel about your hottie girlfriend/boyfriend when they’re looks start to go? Are you still going to love them?

Have you done most, if not all, of everything you’ve wanted to do in life already? If you haven’t done it by now, you’re chances of achieving your dreams drop dramatically after you get married and start having kids. 

Unless of course, that is your dream.

Are you really ready to sacrifice your own happiness and dedicate your life to the happiness and well-being of your spouse?

And don’t feed me any of this crap about what a jerk I am (ok… I am, but that’s besides the point), how you married your spouse right out of high school, you’ve stayed together for 30 years, had 5 great kids who are all academic geniuses, you’re filthy rich, blah blah blah.   You got lucky, you beat the odds. You’re a rare exception to the rule, not the norm. Congratulations.

Don’t misunderstand; I am not suggesting that you should not get to marry the person of your choice. This is America after all, not the Middle East. We don’t do arranged marriages here. 

Ok, true… we have the occasional shotgun wedding, but most of these guys had it coming to them.

What I’m asking is that people, especially you young ones, to think with your heads, as well as your hearts, before you jump into a commitment like marriage. 

Ask yourself the hard questions now, so you won’t become part of John Marcotte’s (and his radical buddies) statistics on failed marriages later. 

Links:

Movement Under Way in California to ban Divorce: Judy Lin, Associated Press, 11/30/09

Well, I wasn’t expecting to get back on the subject of the trials of the 9/11 plotters being held in NYC so soon, but something that both Attorney General Eric Holder and Barack Obama said this morning got my attention.

Eric Holder defended his decision to hold civilian trials in NYC, as opposed to a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay, by stating that “I have every confidence that the nation will see him for the coward that he is. I’m not scared of what (Mohammed) will have to say at trial - and no one else needs to be either.”

“We need not cower in the face of the enemy,” he continued. “Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.”

Obama agreed, and referred to those who would be offended by the legal privileges given to Mohammed by the benefit of a civilian trial as opposed to a military tribunal “won’t find it offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.”

Almost as if catching himself, he quickly added that “I’m not going to be in that courtroom. That’s the job of the prosecutors, the judge and the jury.”

Look you fools… we’re not cowering before these terrorists. We’re not scared of what Mohammed or his ilk has to scream in the courtroom. Saddam Hussein did plenty of yelling and screaming in the courtroom… that didn’t stop him from becoming an Iraqi tree ornament. 

We have plenty of real, legitimate reasons for not wanting the trials being held in NYC, one of them being security concerns, which I discussed earlier. 

The biggest reason, however, is the idea that these Islamic, terrorist thugs, captured while trying to kill us, will receive the same rights and privileges as a U.S. citizen under the Constitution. They’re lawyers can claim that they’re rights weren’t read, that they were tortured, that they have a right to an attorney, etc. Don’t forget, even with Mohammed’s confession that he was the mastermind of the attacks, that confession could be thrown out. They could, even though the chance is small, be acquitted. 

Now here’s the best part… what happens if they are acquitted?

Well, according to Eric Holder, that’s never going to happen. 

“Failure is not an option” he vows. “These are cases that have to be won. I don’t expect that we’ll have a contrary result.”

Does anyone really believe that these guys, particularly Mohammad, will be released back into the populace if found “not guilty”? 

Can you imagine what would happen if we were talking about American citizens still being held after being found not guilty?

So… what exactly is the point of a civilian trial then? If we’re hell-bent on convicting them and keeping them locked up, wouldn’t a military tribunal make more sense? Why are they making the taxpayers go through with this? 

My guess is that their intention is to “show off” to the rest of the world just how “unafraid” we are by holding these trials in the very city that the terrorists attacked, of the complete faith we have in our justice system. 

Instead, we’re going to be showing the world how our justice system has become a complete mockery of what it once stood for. 

Links:

Graham Accuses Holder of ‘Making Bad History’ with Sept. 11 Trial Decision: Fox News, 11/18/09

Obama, Holder Firm on Convicting 9/11 Plotter: CBS5 news.com, 11/18/09

Holder: ‘I’m Not Scared of What Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Has to Say: Rachel Slajda, TPM Livewire, 11/18/09

At least 7,000 people were waiting for an event hosted by a French marketing site called “Mailorama.fr” to start an event, in which a London double-decker bus named the “Bus of Fortune” would drive past the crowd in Paris and hand out envelopes that could contain anywhere from $7.50 to $750 out the windows to the waiting crowd below. 

At least, that was the plan. 

When the police got a good look at the crowd waiting for them, they changed their minds and canceled the event. 

Uh ohhh.

Well, that didn’t sit well with the crowd, and predictably, things got ugly quickly. Windows were pelted with fruit, and at least one car was overturned. I guess that’s what happens when you deny people their “hard-earned” money. After all, have you ever overturned a car and decorated windows with fruit? It’s more difficult than it sounds. They really worked for that money.

While the organizers themselves claimed that they regretted that the event didn’t go as planned, a government official named Eric Woerth expressed shock that the marketing site even considered organizing the event.

“Just because they do this sort of thing in the United States, that’s not a reason to do it in France. It borders on the ludicrous”.

You gotta love the French. Even though the U.S. had absolutely nothing to do with the event, they still find a way to pin the blame on us. 

Oh, and someone needs to clue in Monsieur Woerth that his Socialist government gives money away to slackers all the time, just not as openly as “Mailorama” tried to do.  

Still, frenchie here does bring up an interesting topic. He’s correct when he says that we’ve actually done this kind of thing before. 

Last year in February of 2008, an internet company called “Cashtomatoe.com” decided to throw their own little cash giveaway promotion in Union Square, NYC. The idea was for representatives of the company, dressed as tomatoes, to pass out tomatoes with money attached to them to the homeless. 

Apparently, the mob got tired of waiting, and began yelling “make it rain” and (my personal favorite) “give me my money!” as the clock counted down until the event started. With only 5 minutes to go, the impatient mob of 100 people then pushed their way to the workers, and began grabbing the bags of tomatoes with the money in them. 

Long story short… the money was stolen, fights broke out and people got trampled and stomped on. The money didn’t make it into the hands of the homeless as it was intended, but into the greedy hands of an unruly mob out for quick cash. 

I’m reminded of a scene from that old “Batman” movie back in the 80’s, when the Joker (played by Jack Nicholson) announced on television that he would be celebrating Gotham’s anniversary by throwing a parade and tossing out millions of dollars to the crowd. However, unknown to the greedy parade attendees, he also intended on releasing a deadly gas from the parade floats on the money-grabbing revelers. 

And he would’ve gotten away with it too, if it wasn’t for that meddling freak in a bat costume.

Looking back, I sometimes wonder if maybe the Joker was the real hero. 

Sources:

Free Money Event Turns Violent: Frank Carnevale, MyFox Illinois, 11/16/09

Cashtomatoe Money Giveaway Turns Rotten with Union Square Riot: Seth Fiegerman & Tracy Connor, NYDaily News.com, 03/01/08

When I first heard this story on the radio on the way home from work, my first thought was that it was a possible terrorist attack. However, the FBI stated that they did not believe that it was terrorist related (as if some guy randomly shooting and killing people didn’t cause terror to anyone). They later stated that the shooter was in military uniform, and that he was a known soldier.  At the time, they refused to give the soldier’s name. 

I had a bad feeling that I knew why. I remembered how back in 2003, there was a big story about how a U.S. soldier had rolled 3 grenades into his fellow soldiers’ tent, killing 2 officers and injuring 14 other soldiers. It turns out that the soldier was a Muslim; Sgt. Asan Akbar. Apparently, Sgt. Akbar felt that his fellow soldiers were unfairly “personalizing the war as being the fault of all Muslims”.

What better way to make your point that Muslims are not at fault than by rolling a few grenades into your fellow soldiers’ tent? 

Well, my suspicions that the soldier is a Muslim, or at least of Arabic descent, has proven correct so far. The soldier’s name? Sgt. Malik Nadal Hasan. 

I’m going to take a wild guess here; I’ll probably be wrong, but here it goes…

Sgt. Hasan, and possibly his accomplices who may also be Muslims, are unhappy with the war that is going on in Afghanistan.   They’re upset that their Muslim “brothers” are being killed by American soldiers. They’re ashamed to be American soldiers themselves, so they decided to arrange a little shooting spree to “redeem their honor”.   

Naturally, liberals will claim that they condemn the shooting, but the condemnation will be followed by something along the lines of “but it’s understandable why they would do that. If we weren’t over there killing innocent Afghanis/Iraqis to begin with, this would never have happened. The pressure to them must be unbearable”. 

Some have already tried blaming the shooting on the high levels of stress and the numerous deployments to Afghanistan that many of the soldiers have already been through. Naturally, they’ll conveniently leave out the part where hundreds of our soldiers have already gone through this, yet it never occurred to them that as much stress as they may be going through, they never thought to deliberately shoot up their fellow soldiers.

I know that this isn’t the politically correct thing to say, but hey… somebody has to say it. And yes, I’m probably jumping to conclusions, but let’s face it, I’m sure many of you are thinking along similar lines. 

It’s unfortunate that Sgt. Hasan chose to “express himself” in this matter. He’s done more harm to the Muslim image than anything we could have done. 

Sources:

12 Killed in Shooting at Fort Hood: Sig Christensen and Scott Huddleston, Express News, 111/5/09

Officers Testify of Warnings before Tent Attack: Richard A Serrano, LA Times, 07/17/03

As of late, the Republicans have been using the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to support their argument that the cost of the Democrats’ health care reform bill would cost billions more than originally projected. Now, the Democrats are using the CBO to push their argument that not only would just a small percentage of Americans would sign up for the public option (2%), but that it would also help insurers as well. 

That’s the thing about relying on a non-partisan organization like the CBO; it’s a double-edged sword. Their findings can be just as easily used against you by the other side, as you can use its data against their side. And that’s assuming that the CBO is correct to begin with. No organization is always right.

However, this really isn’t so much about the CBO, as it is about the “sandman” tactics that the Dems are using again. 

“Only 2% of Americans are going to use the public option.” the Democrats claim. “What’s all the big fuss about? You’re getting all worked up over nothing! 2% is hardly a government takeover, is it? Hell, it will even help private insurers out because the premiums for the private plans will be cheaper due to the higher premiums of the public plans. What’s everyone so afraid of? We won’t let a government takeover happen; we’re on your side!”

In other words… back to sleep, middle-class America… back to sleep.

This argument is strikingly similar to one that was used with another policy that the Democrats pushed way back in 1913… you know it now as the income tax.  

The Dems were successfully able to make it Constitutional for the federal government to grab a percentage of your income, by force, by using a tried and true tactic; they played the wealth envy game. They targeted their campaign towards poor and middle class Americans by soothingly assuring them; “Don’t worry…only the wealthiest 1% in the north-eastern United States would ever have to pay that mean ol’ income tax.  That’s hardly a government takeover, is it? After all, we’re only making the richest among you pay their fair share. They have plenty of money. You won’t be affected at all! Remember, we’re on your side!”

Not surprisingly, the tax was passed by an overwhelming majority, and the 16^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was added.  

We all know how that little promise turned out now, don’t we? 

You may be wondering right now, “Wait a second… I don’t live in the north-eastern U.S….I’m not wealthy; so why am I’m paying income taxes?”

I’ll get to that later but until then, I leave you with this; don’t listen to the sandmen, don’t fall back asleep, we have enough nightmares with the income tax as it is.

Sources:

After All the Fuss, Public Health Plan Covers Few: Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Associated Press, 11/01/09