The Holder Contempt Charges: All This for a Flag

Today was an extraordinary day.  It was unprecedented…and unsavory.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) issued the following statement after the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee approved a resolution holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for his refusal to turn over subpoenaed documents related to the Fast & Furious operation:

“Despite being given multiple opportunities to provide the documents necessary for Congress’ investigation into Fast and Furious, Attorney General Holder continues to stonewall. Today, the Administration took the extraordinary step of exerting executive privilege over documents that the Attorney General had already agreed to provide to Congress. Fast and Furious was a reckless operation that led to the death of an American border agent, and the American people deserve to know the facts to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. While we had hoped it would not come to this, unless the Attorney General reevaluates his choice and supplies the promised documents, the House will vote to hold him in contempt next week. If, however, Attorney General Holder produces these documents prior to the scheduled vote, we will give the Oversight Committee an opportunity to review in hopes of resolving this issue.”

The Fast and Furious Fiasco reminds me of some other unsavory business by the Executive Branch:

On 17th June 1972, 5 men were arrested for breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. Initially, it was assumed that it was just a simple burglary that went wrong. However, when investigations started, it was found out that the men had entered the office to repair bugs that they had installed into the office nearly a week earlier.

On further investigations, it was found out that the so-called burglars were some how connected to the White House and were given the task to spy on the Democrats. One of the “burglars” arrested was named Jim McCord Jr. He was the security officer for Richard Nixon’s Committee to Reelect the President. Even a diary was found which had the contact number of E Howard Hunt, who was an intelligence agent and a member of the White House plumbers, which was a secret team of agents working at the behest of the White House. The investigators went on to figure out that the E Howard Hunt along G Gordon Liddy were the brains behind the first break in. Soon it was found that there were many agents responsible for spying on the Democrats. A check meant for Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign was traced to the bank account of one of the burglars. This led the investigators to conclude that the campaign funds were being used to fund these illegal activities. However, even at this stage, it did not stop Richard Nixon, a Republican, to win the US president election.

James McCord sent a letter to the trial judge naming other people who were part of this conspiracy. With more and more evidence being unearthed, it was soon clear that Richard Nixon was personally involved in the scandal along with several members from his administration. It was also discovered that many of the conversations regarding the conspiracy took place in the Oval Office and these conversations were taped. Initially, Nixon denied the presence of the tapes, but due to US Supreme Court order, he was forced to hand over the tapes containing the damning conversations. However, some important conversations from these tapes were missing.

The US Congress was forced to begin the process of impeachment against Richard Nixon. However, before the culmination of the process, Nixon resigned on 9th August 1974. While Nixon himself did not serve any prison time, many of his aides were found guilty by the Grand Jury.

There is a major difference, however, between the two.  200-300 Mexican nationals and two members of United States Law Enforcement were killed during Fast and Furious.  No one died as a result of Watergate.

There is more at stake here than a political dirty trick.

To clarify, let’s go back to 9/13/11, 2 days after America solemnly remembered the 10th anniversary of the worst attack ever on American soil by Islamic Terrorists.  James Robbins wrote the following story for The Washington Times, in which he illuminated a whispered conversation between the President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, and First Lady, Michelle Obama:

The internet was buzzing this week with video of First Lady Michelle Obama apparently showing extreme disrespect to the American flag at a ceremony in honor of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. As police and firefighters fold the flag to the sound of marching bagpipers, a skeptical looking Mrs. Obama leans to her husband and appears to say, “all this just for a flag.” She then purses her lips and shakes her head slightly as Mr. Obama nods.

Yes.  All this for a flag.  And, for those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in its service.

Liberals: The Hypocrisy and Deceit Continue

Did you hear the one about the rich-as-King Midas Liberal comedians who continue to crack unfunny jokes about how rich Mitt Romney is?

The hottest trend among comedic talk show hosts in recent months has revolved around bashing Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, his personal wealth, and his ranking in the “one percent.”

But have these famous television “comedians” forgotten that they too are far from belonging to the “99 percent” when it comes to monetary earnings?

“Mitt Romney just barely won the Republican primary in Ohio by one percent. Then Romney made the mistake of saying, ‘ladies and gentleman, tonight is a victory for the one percent!” Conan O’Brien, who is received a $45 million exit deal from NBC in 2010 and has an estimated net worth of $75 million, exclaimed.

Jay Leno, who reportedly makes $32 million a year from his “Tonight Show” gig alone, and is reported to have a net worth of around $150 million, frequently incorporate Romney-related rich jokes into his late night program.

“CNBC is reporting that America lost 129,000 millionaires last year. Or as Mitt Romney calls them, ‘an endangered species we have to protect,” Leno said, and on another occasion stated: “Mitt Romney says he understands the middle class, and that he knows it’s not easy keeping a roof over your family’s heads – as well as vacation roots in San Diego, New Hampshire, and Park City, Utah.”

The Daily Caller pointed out that Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart, who also has a prominent place on the rich Romney-jibing bandwagon and exploded over his “almost $57,000 a day” income level, makes more than 300 times the median American salary, owns three luxury homes and has been known not to pay his taxes occasion.

“How in the world do you, Mitt Romney, justify making more in one day than the median American family makes in a year – while paying the same tax rate as the guy who scans shoes at the airport?” Stewart gasped.

The political publication went on to highlight that his net worth stands at an assumed $80 million, bringing he and his wife Tracey to an estimated $41,000 a day and observed that he is well on his way to being more affluent than the GOP nominee when he reaches his age.

Fellow Comedy Central star Stephen Colbert has also unleashed plenty of zingers over the past few months – drawing attention to the candidate’s controversial joke about his father closing a Michigan factory.

“It’s like he’s on the Blue Collar tour, if the comedy was about losing blue collar jobs,” Colbert , who’s own net worth has been listed at $45 million, retorted.

David Letterman, who is reported to have earned $45 million with an overall net worth upwards of $400 million relishes Romney’s riches for ratings too, having made such jokes as “last month Mitt Romney raised $76 million. He found it in an old sport-coat pocket.”

Jimmy Fallon, worth about $16 million, also mocked: “A new survey found that Mitt Romney is ahead of Obama among those who make $36,000-$90,000. Or as Romney put it, ‘And they said I can’t connect with the poor.’’

Then there HBO commentator Bill Maher, who told his audience: “Mitt Romney was sitting down with some unemployed workers the other day. Mitt is worth a quarter of a billion dollars, and he said, ‘Hey, I’m unemployed too.’ That is the famous Mormon sense of humor. A little tip Mitt, your people are only funny when the ‘South Park’ guys write your jokes.” Mind you, Maher’s monetary value is approximately $23 million.

If you haven’t been treated to all of this so-called hilarity, then you probably haven’t heard about MSNBC’s latest round of selective editing, either:

During an afternoon broadcast of “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” video of the GOP presidential candidate seemed to show a politician out of touch as he discussed ordering a hoagie at Wawa.

The video clip went viral after the blogsite SooperMexican.com pointed out in a post that it appeared doctored.

“It’s amazing,” Romney said, as the Pennsylvania crowd appeared to laugh. Then viewers saw Romney say, “You have a touchtone keypad, and you touch that, touch this, go pay the cashier, there’s your sandwich.”

What viewers didn’t see or hear was nearly three minutes of Romney discussing the nightmare of paperwork faced by an optometrist he’d talked to in trying to get the post office to change his address. He expressed mock amazement at Wawa’s efficiency to underscore how the private sector often runs circles around the clumsy bureaucracy.

“We went to Wawas and it was instructive to me, because I saw the difference between the private sector and the governmental sector. People who work in government are good people and I respect what they do, but you see, the challenge with government is that it doesn’t have competition,” Romney said in a portion edited out of the segment.

But Mitchell invoked an old perceived campaign stumble by George Bush, who supposedly marveled at a supermarket scanner at a grocers’ convention during his failed 1992 re-election bid. Even though Bush was actually impressed not by an ordinary scanner, but by a then state-of-the-art device that could weigh food and read damaged bar codes, the anecdote was reported by The New York Times and offered as evidence that Bush was out of touch with everyday Americans.

Representatives for the Romney campaign declined to comment, but officials from the Romney camp had reached out to the Peacock Network, which promised they would correct the issue.

At the opening of Tuesday’s show, Mitchell addressed criticism over the misleading edits.

“There’s been a lot of discussion about a conversation you and I had yesterday, Mitchell said to MSNBC contributor Chris Cillizza, “We ran clips of Mitt Romney in Cornwall, Pa., talking about his trip to a Wawa.”

“The RNC and the campaign both reached out to us saying that Romney had more to say about that visit, about federal bureaucracy and innovation in the private sector,” she added before playing the unedited clip from the rally.

Lauren Skowronski, a spokeswoman for NBC, which owns MSNBC, denied that any deceptive editing took place.

“MSNBC did not edit anything out of order or out of sequence and at no time did we intend to deceive our viewers,” Skowronski said.

Remember, these are the same paragons of Broadcast Jounalism ethics who pulled off the following, per Breitbart.com:

In August of 2009, NBC’s Contessa Brewer (who still has the same job) used deceptive editing so that that MSNBC viewers wouldn’t know that the man carrying firearms to a Tea Party was a black man. This allowed Brewer to then host a segment about how racist the Tea Party is towards President Obama and how this racism might just lead to the unthinkable–the assassination of our President.

How effective is their Liberal Propaganda?

Well, now, just as then, when caught, I’m sure that both of their viewers were satisfied with their explanation.

Israel Prepares for Their New Rowdy Neighbors

Even if United States President Barack Hussein Obama sees nothing wrong with the current events in Egypt, our greatest ally, Israel, doesn’t particularly care for the goings-on at the neighbor’s house…especially, when they come over uninvited:

Militants crossed from Egypt’s turbulent Sinai Peninsula into southern Israel on Monday and opened fire on civilians building a border security fence, defense officials said. One of the Israeli workers was killed, and two assailants died in a gunbattle with Israeli troops responding to the attack.

No group claimed responsibility for the attack, which underscored the growing lawlessness in the Sinai desert since longtime Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was toppled by a popular uprising last year.

Military spokeswoman Lt. Col Avital Leibovich said the assailants have not been identified but acknowledged that defense officials suspected Palestinian militants in the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, which also borders the Sinai desert in that same area, might have been involved.

Several hours after the attack, an Israeli airstrike killed two men riding a motorcycle in the northern Gaza Strip near the Israeli border. The Islamic Jihad militant group said the men were members on a “reconnaissance” mission and vowed revenge. Military officials said the incident was not connected to the earlier infiltration from Egypt.

Israeli security officials have grown increasingly anxious about the security situation in the Sinai since Mubarak’s ouster. Continued political turmoil in Egypt, weak policing in the Sinai and tough terrain have all encouraged Islamic militant activity in the area. The mountainous desert now harbors an array of militant groups, including Palestinian extremists and al-Qaida-inspired jihadists, Egyptian and Israeli security officials say. The tumultuous situation surrounding Egyptian elections, in which Islamic groups made a strong showing, has added to Israeli unease.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Army Radio that there has been “a worrisome deterioration of Egyptian control” over the Sinai. Barak said he expected the winner of this week’s presidential elections in Egypt to honor the country’s international obligations – an apparent reference to Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood has said it would respect the historic peace accord but that it would also seek modifications.

Vice Premier Shaul Mofaz, a former defense minister and military chief, said he hoped Israel could conduct a security dialogue with the Egyptians and demand more forceful policing in the Sinai.

“No doubt Sinai has become a security problem,” Mofaz told Army Radio. “Today’s incident ratchets it up a notch.”

There was no immediate comment from Egypt on the attack.

They’ve been a little busy:

The Muslim Brotherhood has vowed to face down Egypt’s ruling generals in a “life or death” struggle over the country’s political future, after declaring that its candidate had won the presidential election and would refuse to accept the junta’s last-ditch attempts to engineer a constitutional coup.

As final ballot results trickled in and unofficial tallies suggested that Mohamed Morsi had secured approximately 52% of the popular vote, the Brotherhood deployed its harshest language yet against the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Scaf), promising to bring millions of Egyptians back on to the streets if attempts to rebuild the old regime continued.

“Over the past 18 months we were very keen to avoid any clashes or confrontations with other components of Egypt’s political system because we felt that it would have negative consequences for the democratic system and for society as a whole,” said Fatema AbouZeid, a senior policy researcher for the Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice party and a media co-ordinator for the Morsi campaign. “But now it’s very clear that Scaf and other institutions of the state are determined to stand in the way of what we’re trying to achieve, and we won’t accept this any more. Egypt will not go back to the old regime through any means, legal or illegal.

“If we find that Scaf stands firm against us as we try to fulfil the demands of the revolution, we will go back to the streets and escalate things peacefully to the highest possible stage,” she said. “Now we have a new factor in Egyptian politics, the Egyptian people themselves, who will not accept a return to the old regime in any form, not after so much Egyptian blood was shed to remove it.

“The revolution is facing a life or death moment and the Egyptian people have put their faith in Dr Morsi to represent them at this time.”

On Monday the parliamentary speaker, Saad el-Katatni, a Brotherhood veteran, said he did not recognise last week’s decision by Mubarak-era judges in Egypt’s supreme constitutional court to dissolve the legislature, a move widely viewed as highly politicised and designed to bolster the generals. Katatni said MPs planned to attend parliament – which was surrounded by armed soldiers – as usual on Tuesday or convene in nearby Tahrir Square, setting the stage for a showdown between the generals who have held sway for six decades and the long-outlawed Islamist movement now on the brink of political control.

An 11th-hour constitutional declaration issued unilaterally by Scaf awarded the generals sweeping powers including the right to put forward legislation and an effective veto over clauses in the new constitution, and formalised the army’s ability to detain civilians and sweep out of barracks at moments of “internal unrest”.

Political analysts described the move as a constitutional obscenity and said it left the three major institutions of the post-Mubarak Egyptian state – the presidency (now curtailed), the parliament (now dissolved) and the constitutional assembly (now floundering in legal uncertainty) – all under the full or partial influence of the armed forces.

With the oldest of all (and the father of all) Islamic Extremist Organizations taking over Egypt, you can hardly blame Israel for being ready to go to war.

Speaking of war, remember when ol’ Scooter declared that Israel should go back to its old borders, as they stood before the 1967 war?  PJTV’s Andrew Klavan had a better idea.

And I will bless them that bless you, and curse him that curses you.

Genesis 12: 3

Obamacare Ruling Right Around the Corner

As all Americans know, the Supreme Court will issue a ruling shortly on the National Affordable Healthcare Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

In reseaching stories for this post, I came upon several articles which were nothing but Liberal propaganda, including this little bit of pessimism from the New York Daily News:

Some are already anticipating the Supreme Court’s ruling on President Barack Obama’s health care law as the “decision of the century.” But the justices are unlikely to have the last word on America’s tangled efforts to address health care woes. The problems of high medical costs, widespread waste, and tens of millions of people without insurance will require Congress and the president to keep looking for answers, whether or not the Affordable Care Act passes the test of constitutionality.

With a decision by the court expected this month, here is a look at potential outcomes:

———

Q: What if the Supreme Court upholds the law and finds Congress was within its authority to require most people to have health insurance or pay a penalty?

A: That would settle the legal argument, but not the political battle.

The clear winners if the law is upheld and allowed to take full effect would be uninsured people in the United States, estimated at more than 50 million.

Starting in 2014, most could get coverage through a mix of private insurance and Medicaid, a safety-net program. Republican-led states that have resisted creating health insurance markets under the law would face a scramble to comply, but the U.S. would get closer to other economically advanced countries that guarantee medical care for their citizens.

Republicans would keep trying to block the law. They will try to elect presidential candidate Mitt Romney, backed by a GOP House and Senate, and repeal the law, although their chances of repeal would seem to be diminished by the court’s endorsement.

Obama would feel the glow of vindication for his hard-fought health overhaul, but it might not last long even if he’s re-elected.

The nation still faces huge problems with health care costs, requiring major changes to Medicare that neither party has explained squarely to voters. Some backers of Obama’s law acknowledge it was only a first installment: get most people covered, then deal with the harder problem of costs.

———

Q: On the other hand, what if the court strikes down the entire law?

A: Many people would applaud, polls suggest.

Taking down the law would kill a costly new federal entitlement before it has a chance to take root and develop a clamoring constituency, but that still would leave the problems of high costs, waste, and millions uninsured.

Some Republicans in Congress already are talking about passing anew the more popular pieces of the health law.

But the major GOP alternatives to Obama’s law would not cover nearly as many uninsured, and it’s unclear how much of a dent they would make in costs. Some liberals say Medicare-for-all, or government-run health insurance, will emerge as the only viable answer if Obama’s public-private approach fails.

It seems to me that the Daily News is ignoring the world around them.  Government Healthcare has been in place for years in countries such as Canada and Great Britain, and things are not as idyllic as Liberal writers would lead you to believe.

Back on June 7, 2010, Dick Morris and Eileen McGann wrote:

The leading Canadian newspaper, the Globe and Mail, reports that “critics say that the clinics are taking physicians away from the public system making it even harder…to find a family doctor.” David Eggen, executive director of a group that supports the Canadian socialized system, Friends of Medicare, said that it’s already hard to find a family physician in Canada and that clinics like these, springing up in several Canadian cities, could make it even harder.

It does not seem to have occurred to defenders of socialized medicine that the system itself is causing the doctor shortage. Cuts in medical fees, overcrowding of facilities, shortages of equipment and space, and bureaucratic oversight have all combined to drive men and women out of family medical practice. Now, with a critical shortage looming, those who can afford to pay for adequate care are opting out of the public system and, literally, taking their lives into their own hands.

But it is illegal to make patients “have to pay a fee to gain access to health services” that are provided free by the government system. So patients and doctors are forming membership-only groups to avoid the legal penalties that could potential stop them from getting or giving the care that they need.

This is where the United States is headed. Socialism dries up the supply of medical care and forces ever stricter rationing of the available resources. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, “Eventually socialism runs out of other peoples’ money.”

With the full implementation of Obamacare and its likely cuts in physician reimbursement, more and more doctors will choose to opt out of Medicare and charge their patients for their care. The elderly who need specialized care will have no choice but to take out insurance, not to fill gaps in Medicare coverage, but to overlay the system with private coverage so they can get the care Medicare now provides to all seniors. If you want to see a family doctor, it will be rough unless you are paying for the care privately. And to see a specialist, at the low reimbursement rates afforded by the program in the future, will be well nigh impossible.

Medical care for the elderly will become like public housing or public education in the inner city. Those who can afford to go elsewhere will. Those who can’t will be left to fend for themselves in overcrowded public facilities that will be, at least, free.

And then, as in Canada, liberal critics will rail, not against the system that dried up the resources in the first place or against the socialist rules that drove doctors out of medicine, but against the private clinics for resources from the public sector.

As someone who has worked in the Medical Industry, both in a Hospital System and in the Insurance Field, I have often wondered what Obama and the Dems’ purpose was in trying to destroy the greatest Healthcare System in the world.

My only conclusion is, that they despise American Exceptionalism, and they want our Healthcare System to be just as lousy as the other state-run ones.

They don’t care, as long as they, the Politboro, have life and death power over us, the unwashed Proletariat.

If SCOTUS does not strike down this unabashed, unconstitutional, government overreach, I would advise you to start picking out an ice floe to put Grandma on.

Like Obama, Hollyweird is Out-of-Touch

On the heels of President Barack Hussein Obama’s un-constitutional Presidential Decree of last Friday, Hollyweird is proving themselves to be just as out-of-touch with average Americans as their messiah.

Deadline.com reports on a couple of “surefire hits” that are examples of a movie industry who is wrapped up in its own little world:

After the tsunami that was Marvel’s The Avengers, five major studio movies disappointed. Then DreamWorks Animation’s Madagascar 3 and Fox’s Prometheus performed better than expected and are still easily holding #1 and #2 their second weekends with $33.5M and $20.5M respectively. (Even though the Ridley Scott scifi thriller dropped a whopping -73% from last Friday to today because of all those gaping plot holes.)

Contrast that with Friday’s newcomers which each should have earned over $20M this weekend because of their star power. But New Line/Warner Bros’ Rock Of Ages (3,470 theaters) fell to earth with a thud. Which Hollywood expected because the pic had been tracking poorly for weeks (and even went down at one point week to week). The studio felt the 1980s period piece was a hard sell to younger moviegoers. I suspect the problem was casting. Russell Brand has been repellant to moviegoers, while Tom Cruise as iconic rocker proved just too incredulous for audiences. The PG-13 musical is looking to open to only $15.5M this weekend after taking in just $5.3M Friday. Given that the pic was based on the Broadway warbler, it did far worse than Mamma Mia which with the same pedigree opened to $27M. Warner Bros was holding out hope for this $75M-budget pic, thinking that a good CinemaScore could generate great word of mouth and therefore great legs for the film. It didn’t materialize: audiences only gave Rock Of Ages a mediocre ‘B’. There’s just no way to save this s(t)inker with hack director Adam Shankman at the helm: weekend gross may fall below $15M.

Columbia/Sony’s That’s My Boy (3,030 theaters) starring Adam Sandler also was bottoming. It will hurt further that audiences only gave it a ‘B-’ CinemaScore. (“But ‘B’s with everybody under 50,” a Sony exec emails me.) Hollywood didn’t expect Sandler to attract his usual family friendly audience with an ‘R’ rating. But an actor who reliably takes in $30M to $40M every opening weekend and then dropping to $14M after grossing only $4.5M today can’t go unchastized. Especially if he hurt his brand with his most recent pic, that execrable flop Jack & Jill. (How much you wanna bet Andy Samberg is rethinking that SNL exit now?) Weekend gross may fall below $12.5M.

Let’s dissect these brilliant pieces of cinematic skill, shall we?

First, according to fandango.com, Rock of Ages goes this way:

A small-town girl and a big-city boy find their fates intersecting on the Sunset Strip, riding a wave of romance through the height of the “hair metal” scene as the off-Broadway musical rocks its way to the big screen courtesy of choreographer-turned-director Adam Shankman (A Walk to Remember, Hairspray). Arriving in Hollywood with stars in her eyes, Sherrie (Julianne Hough) meets Drew (Diego Boneta), and together they plunge headlong into the local rock scene. Meanwhile, as Sherrie struggles to stay afloat in a churning sea of rock ‘n’ roll excess, she gets swept off her feet by audacious rock star Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise). Russell Brand, Paul Giamatti, and Bryan Cranston co-star in a movie featuring music by Journey, Def Leppard, Poison, Whitesnake, Bon Jovi, Foreigner, Joan Jett, and REO Speedwagon. ~ Jason Buchanan, Rovi

And, “That’s My Boy” wastes 2 hours in the following manner, per fandango.com:

While still a teen himself, Donny (Adam Sandler) fathered a son,Todd (Andy Samberg), and raised him as a single parent. On Todd’s 18th birthday, Donny cut the youth loose. After years of estrangement,the older man shows up unexpectedly on the eve of his son’s wedding day, sending the young man’s life into a tailspin. Donny wants desperately to reconnect with Todd, but he must now deal with the repercussions of the bad parenting he exhibited in the past. Cast: Adam Sandler, Andy Samberg, Leighton Meester, Vanilla Ice, James Caan

Evidently, this movie is leaving everyone as cold as Ice, Ice, Baby.

The producers expected average Americans to find a story about a guy who slept with his teacher and got her pregnant, funny?

Epic failure.

As I sit here, on Father’s Day morning, thanking God for all the children I’ve helped to raise, my grandson, and my wonderful bride, I wonder how many other Americans Fathers here in the Heartland are doing the exact same thing?  

Answer: a lot.

Because, whatever the East and the West Coast, and all of the Main Stream Media tries to tell you, average Americans, there are a whole lot more of us than there are of them.

Believe it.

Just how out-of-touch are Hollywood Liberals?

Well, they expect us to buy the idea of Scientologist Tom Cruise as a rock star, Alec Baldwin as a long -haired hipster, and Barack Obama as a great president.

No wonder Arnold, Bruce, and Sly named their restaurant Planet Hollywood…because Hollyweird Liberals sure don’t live on this one.

Obama and Romney Vie for Illegals’ Votes

I knew a fellow named Jose several years ago.  Jose’s family had immigrated from Puerto Rico to Milwaukee when he was 6 years old.  When we met, he lived in Northeastern Mississippi with his wife and 3 children.  Jose had a good job at Fed Ex.  Then, he got laid off.

After he lost his job, Jose became a handy man to make ends meet.  He mowed yards and painted houses.  He wound up with a solid business.

One time, when he was painting a room for me, I asked Jose about illegal immigration.  A grimace came over his usually smiling face.  He said that he resented these people sneaking into this country, while he and so many others, came in the right way.

Then there’s George.  George is a 3rd generation Hispanic American.  George served in Vietnam, and now lives outside of Detroit, after retiring from GM.  George can’t speak a word of Spanish.  A few summers ago, George was riding his Harley all the way to Arizona to visit a buddy whom he served with.  My bride and I were dating at the time.  Since George is married to her cousin, he spent the night at my place.

We talked all afternoon.  While we were talking, I asked George what he thought about the “newcomers”.  He said they needed to become citizens, period.

He was right.

However, I don’t think that he meant the way President Barack Hussein Obama wants to git-r-done.

The Obama Administration announced Friday it will stop deporting illegal immigrants who come to the country at a young age.

The politically charged decision comes as Obama faces a tough reelection fight against Republican Mitt Romney, and Hispanic voters in swing states will play a crucial role in the contest.

The change in policy could allow as many as 800,000 immigrants who came to the United States illegally not only to remain in the country without fear of being deported, but to work legally, according to a senior administration official speaking to reporters Friday.

In a Rose Garden statement, President Obama said the measure would “lift the shadow of deportation” from immigrants, some of who have made “extraordinary contributions” by “serving in our military and protecting our freedom.”

“That we would treat them as expendable makes no sense,” Obama said.

“They study in our schools, play in our neighborhoods … they pledge allegiance to our flag, they are Americans in their hearts and minds … and in every single way but one: on paper.”

Obama was briefly interrupted by a reporter during his statement, a rare breach of protocol that caused the president to lose his temper.

“Excuse me sir, it’s not time for questions, sir, not while I’m speaking,” Obama said.

Later in his statement, Obama, pointing his finger at the reporter in front of the live TV cameras, said: “And the answer to your question, sir — and the next time I prefer you to let me finish by statements before you ask a question — is this is the right thing to do for the American people. I didn’t ask for an argument, I’m answering your question.”

The new policy will not grant citizenship to children who came to the United States as illegal immigrants, but will remove the threat of deportation and grant them the right to work in the United States.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, the policy change will apply to those who came to the United States before they were 16 and who are younger than 30 if they have lived here for five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or served in the military.

A memo from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano ordering the “prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the United States as children” argued that those covered by the order “only know this country as home.” It said these people “lacked the intent to violate the law.”

The new policy will apply to individuals who are already in deportation proceedings, the memo said.

The policy change will accomplish portions of the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, legislation that has stalled in Congress amid Republican opposition.

Never fear, Americans.  Mitt Romney will save us from this unconstitutional abuse of power!

Err…ahhh…never mind:

Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney suggested Friday that he was open to helping young illegal immigrants but said the new policy announced Friday by the Obama administration to suspend their deportations complicates efforts to find a permanent solution.

“I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered and should be solved on a long-term basis so they know what their future would be in this country,” Romney told reporters after a rally in New Hampshire. “I think the action that the president took today makes it more difficult to reach that long-term solution,” noting the new policy “could be reversed by subsequent presidents. I’d like to see legislation that deals with this issue.

His comments represented a sharp change in rhetoric from the Republican primaries, when Romney repeatedly sought to outflank his rivals with a hard line on illegal immigration.

I have a question for Scooter and Mittens…

What part of the word “illegal” do you not understand? What makes the current influx of illegal immigrants exempt from the rules and regulations that every other generation of immigrants to this country had to abide by in order to become legal citizens of the greatest nation in the world? By being here illegally, they are not entitled to the same rights as natural born or naturalized American citizens. In fact, their entry into this sacred land is no better than that of someone who breaks into someone’s home, does their dishes, cuts their yard, cleans their house, and then helps themselves to their food and drives their car without asking. This is in no way a human rights issue. Freedom is God-given. And with freedom comes responsibility. With citizenship comes responsibility, like paying taxes and making your own way. Illegal immigration reminds me of the amorous boyfriend who wants everything a young woman will give him, but will leave her at the first mention of marriage.  This is not a civil rights issue. Illegals do not have the same rights as American citizens. With our rights, come the responsibilities of being an American citizen.

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children.  We are all immigrants in this land, expect for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight.  But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish.  But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.

But, hey…I guess that’s just me.

Obama: Style Over Substance

Yesterday, a desperate-looking 44th President of the United States, one Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm), delivered a speech that was supposed to turn around his rapidly-tanking presidency.

To say that he failed is an understatement.  Even the Liberals were disappointed in their messiah.

Politicker.com reports that

Despite the hype, the speech was mainly a rehash of themes and ideas from the president’s recent stump speeches and his remarks were widely panned as overly long by the political press corps.

In the speech, President Obama outlined his view that this election is a choice between “two fundamentally different views of which direction America should take.” He characterized Mitt Romney’s vision as being the same as the “policies of the last decade,” specifically deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy while he described his own “vision for America” as boiling down to five things: “Education. Energy. Innovation. Infrastructure. And a tax code focused on American job creation and balanced deficit reduction.” President Obama also stressed that the economic crisis began during the Bush administration and that is “started growing again” after he took office and has since “continued to grow.”

All of these points have already been featured in the president’s other recent speeches. Between the pre-speech hype from the campaign, the lack of new material and the overall length of the speech reporters were clearly dissatisfied with end result. Read on for a sampling of Tweets from the political press slamming the president’s speech.

Before the speech was over, Politico’s Mike O’Brien begged the president to stop.

Evidently, ol’ Scooter is now an embarrassment to the Liberals.

But, hey, Libs…there’s good news!  What Obama lacks in substance, he makes up for in style. Yeah, right…

Anna Wintour is becoming quite the fashionable fixture on President Obama’s campaign team this election season.

The Vogue editrix hit Chicago on Tuesday – flanked by supermodels Iman and Chanel Iman, designer Rachel Roy and Obama campaign manager Jim Messina – for an evening of haute fund-raising at Oprah Winfrey’s Harpo Studios.

Wintour was on hand to preside over the Windy City debut of the “Runway to Win” collection, a line of Obama-themed clothes and accessories by designers like Prabal Gurung, Jason Wu, Marc Jacobs, Beyoncé & Tina Knowles, Tory Burch, Tracy Reese and Narcisco Rodriguez – several of whom are favorites of First Lady Michelle Obama.

Tickets ran from $150 for a guest pass to sip cocktails and shop the collection to $1,000 for a VIP package, including a photo reception with Wintour and Iman (aka Mrs. David Bowie) and a limited edition bag, to $2,500 for access to the show, the reception and an exclusive dinner party at Oprah’s Harpo headquarters. Donations benefited the Obama Victory Fund, according to a dedicated page on Obama’s website.

The “Runway to Win” line is also being promoted on the site, with most tops, bags and accessories going for under $100 – a much lower price point than those designers’ creations typically command.

Wintour has been ramping up her involvement, and her visibility, in the president’s reelection effort of late. Proving she’s good for far more than dispensing fashion tips to FLOTUS, Vogue’s longtime editor-in-chief has emerged as one of President Obama’s top boldfaced bundlers, raising over $500,000 for his second run on the White House.

The British-born Wintour’s rising profile in the American political arena has stirred up rumors that the 62-year-old fashion doyenne could be in the running to become America’s next ambassador to the United Kingdom, replacing the outgoing Louis Susman. However, an individual with knowledge of the situation told TheWrap that Wintour is happy at her current job.

Tuesday’s summit for Chicago-area fashionistas was a repeat of a “Runway to Win” campaign event co-hosted by Wintour and Scarlett Johansson in New York on February 7. On Thursday, Wintour will return to Manhattan for yet another fund-raiser, this time with the high-end asking price of $40,000 per guest to join Barack and Michelle Obama and Sarah Jessica Parker at the “Sex and the City” star’s home.

Okaaaay…let me try to get a handle on this:  Obama gives an speech on the economy , sporting all the gravitas of Peter Noone of Herman’s Hermits singing “I’m Henry VIII I Am”.

Second verse, same as the first…

Meanwhile, Mr. Class Warfare himself is hanging out and begging money from the nation’s Liberal Elite…the 1%, if you will, while Moochelle is picking out her Fall Wardrobe while clutching the White House Credit Card in her hot little hands.

Remember back in October of 2008, Presidential Candidate Obama urged Joe the Plumber to “spread the wealth around”?

Well, hypocrite thy name is Soetoro…errr…Obama.

UPI.com reported on 5/16/11 that

President Barack Obama’s wealth reaches upward of $3.8 million and possibly much higher, financial disclosure reports issued by the White House Monday show.

The forms, which only provide wide ranges for each category, show most of his assets are tied up in treasury notes and bills — $1 million to $5 million each, with another $1 million to $5 million in book royalties. Obama and his wife, Michelle, also have at least hundreds of thousands of dollars more tucked away in retirement funds and education funds for their two daughters.

At the lower level, Obama probably is worth $3.8 million and at the upper end would have as much as $16.8 million, the reports indicate.

Huh.  I wonder why OWS didn’t Occupy the White House Lawn?

Oh, yeah.  The Proletariat never picketed the Politboro, either.

Back on the Choom Gang

A couple of weeks ago, veteran presidential biographer David Maraniss, whose book about “Bubba” Clinton, First In His Class, is considered the finest recount of the life of young Bubba, published his new book about the mysterious young life of the 44th President of the United States titled Barack Obama: The Story.

According to Maraniss:

A self-selected group of boys at Punahou School who loved basketball and good times called themselves the Choom Gang. Choom is a verb, meaning “to smoke marijuana.”

…As a member of the Choom Gang, Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking trends. The first was called “TA,” short for “total absorption.” To place this in the physical and political context of another young man who would grow up to be president, TA was the antithesis of Bill Clinton’s claim that as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford he smoked dope but never inhaled.

…Along with TA, Barry popularized the concept of “roof hits”: when they were chooming in the car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.

…When you were with Barry and his pals, if you exhaled precious pakalolo (Hawaiian slang for marijuana, meaning “numbing tobacco”) instead of absorbing it fully into your lungs, you were assessed a penalty and your turn was skipped the next time the joint came around. “Wasting good bud smoke was not tolerated,” explained one member of the Choom Gang, Tom Topolinski, the Chinese-looking kid with a Polish name who answered to Topo.

…[Choom Gang member] Mark Bendix’s Volkswagen bus, also known as the Choomwagon. … The other members considered Mark Bendix the glue, he was funny, creative, and uninhibited, with a penchant for Marvel Comics. He also had that VW bus and a house with a pool, a bong, and a Nerf basketball, all enticements for them to slip off midday for a few unauthorized hours of recreation…

…Barry also had a knack for interceptions. When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted “Intercepted!,” and took an extra hit. No one seemed to mind.

Fast Forward to 2012.  Could the former Barry Soetoro be plotting another “interception”?  Because if he tries to do what this writer is surreptitiously suggesting he might, ol’ Scooter must still be chooming:

Elspeth Reeve reports for theatlanticwire.com that

In 2004 George W. Bush’s re-election campaign worked to put anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives up for vote in several swing states in order to turn out more hard-core conservatives to the polls. This year the question is whether marijuana legalization measures will turn out young voters for Obama.

Bush’s plan to use gay marriage bans — in states that did not actually allow gay marriage — as a turnout booster led to signs featuring icky public restroom symbols proliferated and liberal panic that the Christian right had taken over. The press obsessed over “values voters.” One of Bush’s aides, Ken Mehlman, who later came out as gay himself, has apologized for the strategy, two others say it didn’t work.

This year there’s another incumbent president with modest approval ratings who could turn out his base with controversial ballot measures. But this time, the issue features no biblical or scatological imagery. In 2012, voters in swing states will decide whether they’ll allow their fellow citizens to bear joints. Unlike the gay marriage votes, there’s no indication that Obama’s re-election team is behind any of the pot legalization initiatives, but there are Democrats who are hoping that it will boost turnout among weed’s biggest fans: young people.

Getting more young people to vote has long been a Democratic fantasy, since they tend to vote so heavily Democratic. But past attempts to bong the vote have been disappointing, in part because stoners aren’t the group anyone would most count on to bother filling out a ballot. Ahead of the 2010 midterms, The Wall Street Journal ran the story, “Democrats Look to Cultivate Pot Vote in 2012,” noting that California’s pot-legalizing Proposition 19 was being studied to see if similar measures “could energize young, liberal voters in swing states for the 2012 presidential election.” But exit polls that year showed no spike in young voter turnout, and marijuana legalization was the top issue for just 1 in 10 voters, the Los Angeles Times reported. (Also: Californians ended up voting down Prop. 19.) Still, there were hopeful signs: 64 percent of voters 18-to-24 supported it, and 52 percent of voters 25-to-29 did. In March, the pro-legalization site Just Say Now suggested that the presidential election will draw more young people to the polls, and they’ll vote for pot legalization while they’re there.

That being said, several have argued that this could be the year for pro-marijuana turnout. After all, 2011 was the first year more young people smoked pot than cigarettes, the CDC says. There is a marijuana initiative on the ballot in Washington, and there might be one in Nebraska and Massachusetts, but those states are pretty solid for one party or the other.

I wouldn’t put it past Obama to support legalization in a last ditch effort to avoid a political massacre.  

Why do you think they call it DOPE?

Liberals: A Study in Intolerance

I’ve spent the last two days engaging in a “discussion” with an anonymous Moderate/Liberal/Moby, who took offense to my suggestion that the idiot Coney Island Principal who forbade 5 year olds from singing God Bless the USA, should go ahead and leave our country, if she hates it that much.

The anonymous woman (I presume) in question said, that I did not have the right to express my opinion in that way because it was rude.

Oh yeah?  Well, what do you call this, precious?

Noel Sheppard, posted the following at newsbusters.org:

Joy Behar, Al Gore’s new employee at Current TV, said Tuesday in response to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s comments on the need for more police, teachers, and firefighters, “I’d like to see his house burn, one of his millions of houses burning down.”

During an interview with the liberal website Mediaite, Behar added, “It would be kind of cool – the Mormon fire patrol”

MEDIAITE: What would you ask Romney if you could?

JOY BEHAR: I would ask him plenty of questions about, is he planning to endorse the Ryan budget? And I think that would be a terrible mistake. I don’t want to see people on the streets begging for food, thank you. And why does he hate Planned Parenthood? You know, he didn’t used to hate Planned Parenthood. I want to ask him about all the flip-flopping he’s been doing. That’s why he doesn’t want to come on, because he’s afraid of the questions.

MEDIAITE: I saw that you used to be a school teacher. What did you think about what he said about “teachers, firemen, and police?”

BEHAR: What did he say? Tell me what he said.

MEDIAITE: He was making fun of the President for wanting to hire more policemen and firemen and teachers saying, you know, “Didn’t he get the message of Wisconsin that we want less government?”

BEHAR: Oh, less government? That is an idiotic statement. Can I just say that?

MEDIAITE: Yes.

BEHAR: I mean, I’d like to see his house burn, one of his millions of houses burning down. It would be kind of cool – the Mormon fire patrol.

MEDIAITE: Is that a thing?

BEHAR: You know what I mean? Come on. What am I supposed to do if my apartment gets caught on fire? Am I gonna call Mitt Romney to come and put it out? See what I mean?

No, you belligerent Beltway Heifer, I don’t.  

You’ve made a living being an obnoxious loudmouth.  I can’t believe somebody would actually pay a no-talent whiney Lib like you, to express opinions which 80% of the country think are nothing but vacuous vulgarities.

But, that’s the double standard so prevalent in America today.  Liberals can say whatever they want to, about anybody they want to, no matter how vulgar and hurtful it is.

Sometimes, like David Letterman’s failed joke concerning Bristol Palin and a New York Yankee, they wind up having to apologize.  Most of the time, as in the case of all the unfunny oral diarrhea flowing from the walking, talking orifice known as Bill Maher, they don’t have to.

It’s viewed as witty and urbane by those Libs and Moderates on the East and West Coasts.

Those of us here in the Heartland, know the reason why his eyes are brown.

But, I digress…

It’s not just Liberal celebrities who are acting like idiots.

I’ve already written about the idiot principal up in Coney Island. Here’s another very educational example:

Gerald Molen won a best picture Oscar for co-producing Schindler’s List with Steven Spielberg and has produced such Hollywood blockbusters as the first two Jurassic Park films and Twister. He’s a former U.S. Marine and is a sought-after motivational speaker.

So he’s not accustomed to being shunned.

Such was the case, though, when he was invited to speak to the graduating class at a Montana high school. But upon arriving, was told by the principal he would not be allowed to deliver the speech he had prepared.

The reason, he believes, is politics.

Molen is one of those rare conservatives in Hollywood (he’s even making a documentary called 2016, based on the Dinesh D’Souza book The Roots of Obama’s Rage) and because of that, he says, Ronan High School principal Tom Stack decided to disinvite him — and he didn’t tell him so until after Molen made the 90-minute drive from his home in Bigfork, Mont.

Well, I’ve got some good news and some bad news for you: The good news is that the school district apologized to Molen. The bad news is that it was too late for him to speak at the graduation:

The incident as described by Molen “did, in fact, occur,” superintendent of schools for the Ronan district Andy Holmlund told The Hollywood Reporter on Friday.

“It is my understanding that the high-school principal made the decision based on his point of view. It is not the view of the district. That’s not the expectations that the district maintains. That principal will not be serving in this school district for the upcoming school year.”

Holmlund said Stack has accepted a position with a school in Clinton, Mont., though he refused to say when or why that decision had been made. Residents say it was likely unrelated to Stack’s decision to disinvite Molen.

Asked why Stack had not responded to several phone calls, Holmlund said: “I can’t speak to the fact that Mr. Stack isn’t talking.”

Asked about the public’s response to the sudden, nationwide pubicity to the controversy, Holmlund said: “Oh, it’s on fire, sir. Justifiably so. We don’t expect people to be treated poorly.”

Uh huh.  But, just like those 5 year olds up in Coney Island, Mr. Molen was.

Isn’t it funny, how those among us who claim to be the most tolerant, are actually the least tolerant of all?

You’ve Got to Know When to Hold(er) ’em…

Our nation’s chief law enforcement office is standing accused of deliberately lying to Congress.

Per  CBSNews.com:

The House Oversight Committee will vote next week on whether to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. It’s the fourth time in 30 years that Congress has launched a contempt action against an executive branch member.

This time, the dispute stems from Holder failing to turn over documents subpoenaed on October 12, 2011 in the Fast and Furious “gunwalking” investigation.

The Justice Department has maintained it has cooperated fully with the congressional investigation, turning over tens of thousands of documents and having Holder testify to Congress on the topic at least eight times.

However, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., says the Justice Department has refused to turn over tens of thousands of pages of documents. Those include materials created after Feb. 4, 2011, when the Justice Department wrote a letter to Congress saying no gunwalking had occurred. The Justice Department later retracted the denial.

“The Obama Administration has not asserted Executive Privilege or any other valid privilege over these materials and it is unacceptable that the Department of Justice refuses to produce them. These documents pertain to Operation Fast and Furious, the claims of whistleblowers, and why it took the Department nearly a year to retract false denials of reckless tactics,” Issa wrote in an announcement of the vote to be released shortly. It will reveal the vote is scheduled for Wednesday, June 20.

Issa says the Justice Department can still put a stop to the contempt process at any time by turning over the subpoenaed documents.

If the House Oversight Committee approves the contempt citation, the matter would likely be scheduled for a full House vote.

On 8/31/2011, heritage.org told the story of this fatally botched operation:

A U.S. government gun-trafficking investigation gone horribly wrong has resulted in the death of a U.S. Border Patrol officer, some 2,000 firearms in the hands of criminals, and the dismissal of a 24-year veteran law enforcement official. This is the story of Fast and Furious, and yesterday the latest chapter unfolded when two top officials associated with the operation were removed from their positions, while a third individual resigned.

The story begins in the fall of 2009, when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) office in Phoenix, Arizona, began selling weapons to small-time gun buyers in the hopes of tracing them to major weapons traffickers along the southwestern border and into Mexico. Their efforts failed, the number of arms unaccounted for numbers around 1,500 as of late July, and about two-thirds of those guns ended up in Mexico, according to congressional testimony.

Tragically, the botched operation has had serious consequences. On the night of December 15, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was shot and killed during an effort to catch several bandits targeting illegal immigrants in Arizona near the border. When law enforcement rushed to the scene, they discovered two of the killers’ assault rifles that were among those sold as part of Operation Fast and Furious. Additionally, 57 Fast and Furious weapons have been connected to at least an additional 11 violent crimes in the U.S.

Of course, the Obama Administration is incredulous over Congress’ accusations regarding the Attorney General’s role in this fatal fiasco:

RollCall.com reported yesterday that

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney today defended Attorney General Eric Holder’s cooperation with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s investigation into the “Fast and Furious” gun smuggling operation.

Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) announced today that his committee will hold a vote June 20 on a report relating to the committee’s efforts to hold Holder in contempt of Congress for failing to produce some documents subpoenaed by the panel.

Carney said Holder has taken the allegations that a gun-running sting resulted in thousands of guns being lost to criminal elements in Mexico “very seriously” and has asked his own inspector general to investigate.

He added that the Justice Department has handed over more than 7,600 pages of documents to the committee and has appeared eight times before Congress to discuss the scandal.

Carney then referred reporters to comments by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who told the Hill in March that the investigation is, in part, “politics.”

“Given the Justice Department’s efforts to accommodate the committee investigation, I can only refer you to the Republican House Judiciary member who recently conceded that this investigation is ‘politics,’” Carney said.

King’s comments appeared in a story about House GOP’s leadership’s reluctance to pursue the contempt citation against Holder. King reportedly said, “I think leadership doesn’t want to be seen as using the gavels here for political purposes. I think there’s a bit of an aversion to that. Me? I have no reservations about that. This is politics.”

Since then, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have gotten behind Issa’s efforts to compel the Justice Department to comply with the committee subpoena.

Carney also said the White House does not see a need to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate national security leaks relating to cyber-attacks against Iran, the U.S. drone strike program, the president’s involvement in selecting which terrorism suspects should be targeted for assassination and other stories that have recently appeared in the news.

Carney cited the administration’s record in prosecuting leaks of classified information in the past in indicating that the White House believes that the two U.S. attorneys Holder has appointed will be able to independently investigate the source of the information.

“I think our seriousness about this matter in general — about these matters in general has been demonstrated while the president has been in office. I would refer you to the Department of Justice and the FBI when it regards questions of matters under investigation or potential investigation. So there is no need for a special counsel. These things have consistently been investigated when that’s appropriate,” Carney said.

Yeah, right.  And America’s Private Sector is doing just fine.