Thanks to White House Support, Egyptian Islamic Law to Allow Sex with Deceased Wife

We know republicans don’t support women’s rights like the White House does, right? Especially things like reproductive rights. So it’s a good thing that the White House supports governments like those in Egypt. They took out Mubarak and made sure those nice Muslim Brotherhood guys got in. So what is the women-supporting, Islamic parliament doing now?

They about to pass a law that allows a husband to have sex with their dead wife for up to six hours after death. Hey, Sandra Fluke, how about that for reproductive freedom? Well at least at that point, they don’t need to worry about their health care plan providing birth control.

But that’s not all: They are also lowering the marriage age of girls to 14 so they can combine child rape with arranged, forced marriages. They’re also getting rid of laws about guarantee of education, employment for women. Don’t want them to get any ideas in their heads.

Don’t forget it’s THIS White House that supported the overthrow of Mubarak and the establishment of an Islamic parliament. Similar to when Iran’s Shah was overthrown, Egypt, once a country friendly toward the US and Israel is now going back to Sharia laws and furthering the oppression of women.

But remember, according to this administration, it’s the republicans that are anti-women….

Stumped About Stupak

Say the magic word and the
Heathcare Doc drops down!

I'm stumped about Stupak...but not for the reason most are, apparently. What puzzles me is why so many thought Rep. Bart Stupak was, if not conservative, then at least someone with some semblance of principles or morals. Many republicans thought he was going to stand up against his party.

Come on folks! He's a democrat politician and his mouth is moving...ergo, he's lying.

Never mind the phony baloney executive order which does nothing. Stupak previously said he'd vote for the healthcare bill with abortion left intact.

As would have all the OTHER democrat representatives that voted no. They were allowed to vote no by the democrat congressional machine, most likely because they are in vulnerable districts. It's a game of Mother (Pelosi) May I. All those in more conservative leaning districts, especially those coming up for re-election, ask for a pass so they can claim to their constituents that they're really so-called blue-dog (conservative) democrats. Personally, I think they're all yellow. Maybe they should just be called the yellow-chicken democrats. They're only trying to pretend they don't march in lock step with their party. But they know full well if they really stood up to Pelosi, they'd be cut off at the knees (or other body part) and stripped from any plum committees they chaired.

Not that republicans don't play their share of games. Senator Jim Bunning, who's retiring this year decided to make his stand against the increase of unemployment benefits public. While it's laudable to actually expect Congress to show how they're going to pay for the bills they pass (i.e., PAYGO), why make your stand on the backs of the unemployed? You sure didn't show such determination when it came to voting for the GOP Medicare prescription benefit. And even fellow republicans were asking Bunning why the hell did he pick this for his battle. Of course, it's easy to find your 'huevos' when you don't have to worry about running for reelection in the fall.

Americans are tired of games and the runaround. There's going to be a political bloodbath for the democrats, come November. But republicans shouldn't be surprised if they also lose a few of their own party's seats to more conservative candidates in their own party.

I Agree with Obama: I’d Rather Him Be a One-Term President Too! (Part 2)

Missed Part 1? Shame on you! Get caught up here.

On energy, Obama made some surprising statements about building more nuclear plants, opening offshore for oil and gas development and even investing in biofuel and clean coal development. But then he adds:

“And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.”

By making every other kind of energy hellishly expensive. He’s talking about the cap and trade bill. With all the recent talk of health care reform juggernaut, most citizens can be forgiven if they forgot about this one. It’s baaaack!



Don’t forget, after campaigning in coal states and talking about clean coal during the campaign, this statement, made to the San Francisco Chronicle (a quote they didn’t include in their article, but were outed about later), he said, “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.”

He also said that, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."



So which to believe, the campaign Obama or the President Obama. Being that he’s still after “Cap and Tax” legislation, I don’t think we’ll see a jump in any solution that will be taxed out of business. So he can talk all about allowing offshore drilling and clean coal while making it too expensive to do either.

When it comes to healthcare, Obama thinks he just hasn’t explained it well enough. “Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people.” No, the problem is YOU don’t listen—the people have told you they REJECT your plan.

Inserts mine:

“It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And…[after skewing the numbers so that you’re taxed for years before coverage phases in] our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.”

Do you really think this will be a money-making deal for the government that will bring down the deficit? If that were the case, Medicare would be rolling in dough!

“But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.”

Republicans have been TRYING to let you know. It’s a bit hard when they are shut out of meetings. Of course, we don’t see that, (or the backroom deals with labor unions and holdout representatives and senators) since the health care reform has not been televised on C-Span as promised.

“Here's what I ask of Congress, though: Do not walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.” [Even though the American people have rejected your plan!]

But then those in the White House don’t even think the Massachusetts populace voted for Scott Brown because he pledged to stop health care. On Fox News Sunday, Robert Gibbs, the administration’s press secretary claimed that the voter’s anger was similar to the anger that put Obama at office, not anger at Obama’s policies. Brown campaigned against the current health care plan, not trying terrorists in civilian courts and lowering taxes. In response Gibbs said, “That may be what he campaigned on, but that's not why the voters of Massachusetts sent him to Washington.”

But to people in the Obama administration, we’re just dull children who don’t understand that our wise father, Obama, just wants what’s best for us. Rubbish!

In the same interview, when asked about the latest Bin Laden tape, Gibbs called Bin Laden, “nothing but a cowardly, murderous thug and terrorist that will someday, hopefully soon, be brought to justice.”

And no doubt, if Obama has his way, it will be in a civilian court.

I Agree with Obama: I’d Rather Him Be a One-Term President Too! (Part 1)

I pledge a spirit of cooperation and bi-
partisanship, to reach across the aisle and
work with those despicable republicans who
are to blame for all the problems!

Prior to the State of the Union speech, Obama was interviewed by Diane Sawyer, (who had put her big girl panties on and was trying to sound like a tough reporter).

At one point Obama said, “The one thing I'm clear about is that I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.”

Are you kidding me? He thinks that pissing off the public to the extent that he ends up a one-term president equals success? Maybe he should talk to Jimmy Carter on how that feels in between their discussions on their respective Nobel Peace Prizes and how much they hate anyone named Bush. However, I do agree that I would prefer Obama be a one-term president!

When Sawyer asked if he would still be able to hold to his promise about not raising taxes on anyone making over $250K, he neatly sidestepped the question by saying, "I can guarantee that the worst thing we could do would be to raise taxes when the economy is still this weak." Sawyer, of course, didn’t bother to challenge Obama about his non-answer.

It was the State of the Union address that was, “about as popular as a root canal.” Over seventy minutes long, Obama’s speech meandered through the blame Bush rhetoric to his plan to save taxpayer money by spending even more taxpayer monies.

Look, I know he’s not stupid, but he is arrogant. And arrogance can sometimes stand in for stupidity.

During the State of the Union, Obama demanded a spending freeze, but then said it wouldn’t take place until 2011. “That’s the way budgets work,” he ad-libbed after some rather loud laughter erupted from the gallery. (They weren’t laughing with him either.) But then he turned around and went through a laundry list of bills (and taxes) he wanted passed, including healthcare.

Only a week ago, most democrats were administering last rites to their health care bill after the election of Scott Brown as #41, giving republicans a crucial edge to stopping the Obama taxation express and striking true fear in the hearts of democrats up for election in November. After the Massachusetts election, most presidents would have stuck a conciliatory tone. Not this president—he continued to drive in the wedge and push his unpopular agenda. 

He was a cheerleader for “changing the tone in Washington.” The problem is the tone he changed it to was (still!) whining about the Bush administration!

“So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight. At the beginning of the last decade, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. That was before I walked in the door.

I know that some in my own party will argue that we cannot address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. I agree, which is why this freeze will not take effect until next year, when the economy is stronger.”

See, in the progressive mindset, spending our tax dollars helps not hurts (unless it’s being spent on the military or other conservative ideas.) It’s counter to what logic dictates: in a down economy, you STOP spending, not spend even more. That is because in their mind, government is the solver of problems, not the free market. We’re just imbeciles who would be sitting in a corner, sucking our thumb if the government wasn’t here to help. Meanwhile, we are hemorrhaging money in amounts that will keep generations in debt.

The first thing Obama suggested, was taxing banks.

“To recover the rest, I have proposed a fee on the biggest banks. I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea, but if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.”

Which they will pass on to us, the consumer, in the form of increased fees. I hated the Wall Street bonuses as much as anyone, but the banks shouldn’t have gotten our tax monies in the first place. It certainly didn’t stop a lot of smaller banks from going out of business (and the mega banks from snapping them up.) Now he wants to charge them a “fee” (read: tax). Businesses don’t pay tax. We pay the tax—when the cost of business goes up, they pass on the costs to all of us.

Inserts mine:

“To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. [Which will cause banks to cut back on making student loans.] Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years—and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service. [Who’ll be paying those loans back…why WE will.] Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. And it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs because they too have a responsibility to help solve this problem.”

Well, let’s just give everyone FREE tuition and be done with it. Unfortunately, students (and their parents) sometimes make bad choices. It does not make sense to take out massive loans if you’re not going into a career where you can make enough to pay them back! If you’re going to become an English, journalist (heh), social worker or basket weaving major, go to a smaller, public university and work your way through or plan to get a major scholarship.

“And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.” No, you just snuck it into the withholding tables. Did you notice the take-home amount in your paycheck went down from last year? That’s because congress lowered the threshold, raising taxes on wages across the board. So we’re back to playing word games again—it depends on what the meaning of ‘raising income taxes’ is.

(Part 2 Tuesday: Energy, Heath Care (again!) and Why was Scott Brown elected? Hint: They know the reason better than the electorate!)

Downtown Scotty Brown, 41, Future Presidential Candidate…what!?

Republican candidate for President?

The state that held the original Boston Tea Party had another tea party of sorts. Although the White House is playing the election down, no one in the real world missed the significance of a Massachusetts win by a candidate who is not only a republican, but a conservative, to a post held by one of the most liberal senators ever. The last republican senator from Massachusetts left office in 1979.

He referred to Washington as “the machine,” described himself as a “Scott Brown Republican,” corrected pundits that the office was “the people’s seat,” drove a GM pickup truck with 200K miles on it and was a high school basketball star with the nickname “Downtown Scotty Brown.” The republican buzz around Scott Brown was similar to that of Governor Sarah Palin: An independent conservative who will fight his own party if necessary and a populist, outsider candidate.

It was the culmination of a long year of protests on Washington at a Congress who had turned a deaf ear to the populace and had a general, “we know better what’s good for you” attitude. The media, White House toadies and Obama made fun of the tea party protesters. Now, with Brown’s election, democrats have stopped laughing, realizing their re-election is not assured. The health care bill is in doubt as many are having second thoughts about losing their elected positions just to get it passed. The president has given the people “change,” but not the change they wanted and the “hope” now is about making Congress listen, one way or another. Voters are hungering for a positive message that’s not just political spin. We long to hear about the “shining city of the hill” again.

“Four years ago, we raised a banner of bold colors -- no pale pastels. We proclaimed a dream of an America that would be ‘a shining city on a hill.’ We came together in a national crusade to make America great again, and to make a new beginning. Well, now it's all coming together. With our beloved nation at peace, we're in the midst of a springtime of hope for America. Greatness lies ahead of us.” Ronald Reagan, 1984

How refreshing that was compared to a president who travels the globe, bowing to foreign leaders and apologizing. Obama is antithesis of Reagan—in his mind America is not a great country. Just the opposite. One of the first things he did was speaking to Europe, the middle east and the UN, apologizing for America’s behavior. Most Americans certainly don’t feel that way and felt Obama’s “Apology Tour” only weakened us to both our friends and our enemies.

Many in the conservative ‘verse were hoping Brown would deliver the rebuttal to Obama’s state of the union. (He’s not—another new face, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, will have that honor.) However, some are already talking a presidential run for the attractive, charismatic young senator. Let’s hold on for just a moment…

Senator Scott Brown

It’s easy for people to latch onto and pour their hopes and dreams into a candidate. Remember Barack Hussein Obama? Even when he told cheering audiences exactly how he would wreck the country if elected, they only chose to hear, “Hope and Change.” When little is known about a candidate, voters tend to mold that person into their own ideal.

You might also recall a time when some in the republican party debated a constitutional amendment to allow naturalized citizens to run for president. All this came about when Arnold Schwarzenegger was running for governor. However, after his policies ran to the far left and his popularity tanked, you don’t hear anyone wistful that he could run for higher office.

So while we’re all excited about “41,” let’s wait and see what Brown does in office and hope he will live up to the hype of the campaign trail.

They’re Just Wild About Harry (Reid)

Turning on the TV or radio earlier this week, prior to the tragic earthquake in Haiti, only one topic took center stage. Not that a republican is poised to take a senate seat in a liberal democrat stronghold, or that Congress is trying to hurry up and finish shoving health care reform down our throats.

No…everyone only wanted to talk about Democrat darling, Sen. Harry Reid and his gaffe regarding Obama. Liberal democrats were trying to convince us that Reid was actually complimenting Obama. Even members of the alleged black leadership were tripping over themselves to accept Reid’s apology. On the other side, republicans complained that democrats were hypocrites for previously damning Trent Lott, while Reid gets a pass by democrats and the media. And that they were going to hold their breath until they turned blue! Okay I made the last up...but it got close to that!

My first thought was: So, what did you expect? My second thought was how it was republicans who ultimately gave the senate leader the heave-ho, not the democrats. Not that democrats didn't complain--oh, they complained loudly. The decried how Lott's toast to Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday, was a sign the Mississippi Senator was essentially sympathetic to the equivalent of American apartheid. They conveniently forgot that in the early days when Strom made a pro-segregationist presidential run, Strom was a democrat. Just as Robert Byrd was once a member of the KKK. Democrats always conveniently forget which side their party was on when it came to slavery and later, "separate but equal" laws. After the 1948 election, Strom remained a democrat senator for 14 more years until switching to the Republican party in 1964.

But it was republicans who ousted Lott from his leadership position. They could have stood by him--just as democrats are supporting Reid, but they didn't. I have a strong hunch that most just didn't really care for Lott or had their own eyes on moving up the food chain to the speaker's seat.

Both Reid’s and Lotts’ statements were stupid and obviously not thought out. One could argue which statement was more damning: a toast made at a century-old senator's private birthday party or a comment made about then-candidate Obama on his electability based on his skin color and his dialect. Even worse Reid added he (Obama) could turn his dialect on and off to sound more or less black.

But my message to the republicans and conservatives is: Get over it. Let Reid's constituents decide in 2010. There are a LOT bigger fish to fry such as health care reform and cleaning both houses in 2010 and 2012. And don't forget we have cap and trade and immigration reform looming.

To the liberals and democrats who are trying to excuse Reid's remarks: Yeah, you're a bunch of hypocrites and you're not getting away with it as you have in the past. How any so-called member of the black leadership can say with a straight face that it's okay, because Reid was supporting Obama, or worse, that he was actually complimenting Obama--it's ludicrous. I suspect members of their respective communities are not quite so forgiving.