Monday, January 26, 2009

Suddenly, a powerful WH is a good thing?

Well, this is what Politico says:

Not even a week has passed since he was sworn in, but already Obama is moving to create perhaps the most powerful staff in modern history – a sort of West Wing on steroids that places no less than a half-dozen of his top initiatives into the hands of advisers outside the Cabinet.

Interesting.

Two top Obama ppl were subject of Subpoenas

One of those things that would have made the news if his name was Bush, instead of Obama:

Among 43 subpoenas released by the Blagojevich administration Friday, one from Dec. 8 seeks notes, calendars, correspondence and any other data that relate to Axelrod, Jarrett and 32 other people and organizations.

That was the day before the FBI arrested Blagojevich, a two-term Democrat, on charges that he tried to trade his appointment to replace Obama in the Senate for campaign contributions. Wiretapped conversations show Blagojevich thought Jarrett was interested in the seat and he wanted campaign money or a high-paying job in return, according to a sworn statement.

Yep. Who believes that Blago was trying to get a pay-off from everyone... but never asked the president elect for one?

Heard during coverage of the Inauguration

I watched and TIVO'd part of the coverage of the post-inauguration to see what the press was saying about Obama.
The fawning was more ridiculous then usual.

I have some of my favorite quotes, and I'm including them here. I know that they are not 100% accurate, but I typed them as I heard them, and they do reflect what was said.
All of these quotes came from the coverage on ABC.

At one point, a woman is talking about how Obama was a basketball player in high school, for a short amount of time. After explaining that he rarely played, she had this to say:

I think he did have talent. It was just that some of the other players had been there longer, and had played more.

I think that was the first official apology of the press on a shortcoming of the incoming president. It wasn't that the president wasn't good. It was that others had been there longer and played more. So outside of experience, Obama had talent. Where have I heard that before?

Later in the coverage, Obama entered the White House and the parade started. It took a while for Obama to leave the WH for the reviewing stand, to watch the parade. This made one of the male commentators fret:

I'm just worried that some of those units will go by, and the president won't get to see them.

Yes. I'm sure that the president was worried about that. I'm sure the first thing that he was thinking about, after becoming president, was "Yay! Marching bands!"

But as funny as those quotes were, my favorite quote came from a woman who was talking, and let this gem out:

Washington encompasses all that is corrupt and evil about the United States.


I'm sure that if you gave her more time, she'd tell you about the other things that she thought were evil about the United States. I'm sure she had a list. But at that time, she was worried about Obama because now he was in Washington... where everything that is corrupt and evil about the United States resides.
Mainly, reporters.

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Bi-partisanship? "I won"

Obama, explaining why he doesn't have to listen to Republicans:
President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

Yes. Yes you did.
You won on the promise that you would find a new spirit of co-operation. Which some of us knew was bullshit.

Media surprised that the new administration is arrogant

I actually smiled when I read this in Politico:
A growing media frustration with Barack Obama’s team spilled into the open at Thursday’s briefing, with reporters accusing the White House of stifling access to his oath re-do and giving Obama’s first interview as president to a multi-million dollar inauguration sponsor.

Growing frustration? Wow, that sounds familiar. Maybe its because myself and every single Republican have felt it since Obama started running?

A little piece of trivia was included in the story. ABC News was granted special access to the DC inaugeral ball, which they paid millions for.
So much for the man of the people.

Here's another fun tidbit.
The 'most open administration ever' started a press conference with a briefing on Guantanamo. However, the administration wanted the briefers referred to as 'senior administration officials', and didn't want their real identities reported.
Keep in mind, they did this at a press conference.
According to the Washington Times:
"Why did the administration believe it was important for the American people not to know the name of the two senior administration officials who briefed us this morning on Guantanamo?" one reporter asked in the packed and steaming hot briefing room just off the White House West Wing.

Great question. I hope the press remembers to keep asking them.

Stimulating the Democrats

I'm sure you've already heard about the $600 million in the Obama stimulus package that they want to spend on government vehicles.
I wonder how many people have made this connection?
  1. The auto companies complain that they need to be bailed out.
  2. Democrats, eager to keep union votes, create a bailout package to lend/give the auto companies money.
  3. The same democrats approve of $600 million to be spent on (American) cars for the federal work force.

Thus the Democrats get to double dip into your pocket for a corporate bailout of the auto industry, and then claim that [$600 million/cost of car] extra cars have been sold due to their bailout package.
Presuming that the cars cost $20,000 each, that means that the government could increase sales of cars by 30,000. What were the names of those lobbyists again?

It gets worse. According to the Wall Street Journal:
Power-equipment maker General Electric Co. lobbied for a slew of provisions in the bill and won several, including the production tax credit for renewables, $32 billion for a "smart" U.S. electrical grid for which it manufactures most components; and $300 million for rebates for consumers who buy energy efficient appliances, which GE sells.

This is really, really, really important for the American people to understand.
If this bill goes through, your LIFETIME TAXES will increase by about $78,000 to pay for this bill. That's everyone's taxes.
-And who is this money going to?
Why... those "greedy corporations", like General Electric. -And General Motors. -And all of those other companies that the Democrats have been criticizing Republicans for giving tax breaks to.

I can't stress this enough: the biggest way to waste $78,000 of your money is to approve of this stimulus bill.
If you want to buy the equivelent of 3 luxury cars, without anything in return? Cool. Tell that to your congressman/woman. But if you don't have a cool 80k to throw into the sewer, call your congressperson now. Today. Right now. You have a cell phone, and you have the minutes.

Give them a piece of your mind.
Tell them that you know that the economy is in the crapper, but that you're onto them.
While you're at it? Call your newspaper and ask them for the details of whats in this stimulus package. Tell your friends what you know about it... particularly the guys wearing the shirts with Obama's face on it.
When they start giving you talking points about how we have to do something, ask them if they know that it will cost them $78,000. -And slap them if you have to.
Hard.

Obamatize yourself

So you know, I do realize that most of my posts are Obama-centric right now. Its hard to ignore that powder blue and red socialist donkey in the room.

Particularly when the Facebook community is Obama-tizing themselves. This website takes any image that you have and converts it into the socialist-icon colors that were used for the Obama posters.

Now I have to start out by explaining, in all fairness, that I took a photo of myself in a santa suit for my Christmas card, and used photo-shop to do the same thing.
But the difference is that I was making fun of the people who seem to have no idea of the socialist imagery used to sell Obama.
I'm not sure how many of the people on facebook know where Shepard Fairley got his inspiration from.
To their credit, someone on the Obamacon website understood the origins and made the image of another socialist icon.

Friday, January 23, 2009

What Rahm has said... for the record

I believe that Blago has a more cynical reason for trying to get Rahm on the stand, rather then just to defend himself.
I think that the threat of getting Rahm Emmanuel on the stand, under oath, is there to get Democrats to back off of Blago. Because, and this is just my feeling, Rahm is hiding something.

But for the record, this is what Rahm said in an interview on Meet The Press:
MR. GREGORY: At any point during those discussions with either Governor Blagojevich or with his chief of staff, did you get the impression or the distinct impression that he wanted something in return for exceeding...

MR. EMANUEL: No.

MR. GREGORY: ...to the recommendation of the president-elect?

MR. EMANUEL: No.

Eventually, taped transcripts of their conversation will come out. Then we will see if what Rahm said is the truth.
In the meantime, I'll note that Rahm hasn't requested that those conversations become public.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Renewing America's Rhetoric

I was watching the parade after Obama's inauguration and I started noticing this logo all over the place. Or rather... I thought I did. You know how when you see an ad placement in a baseball game, and you can't believe that someone was actually that crass?

That's how I felt when I saw this:


Yes, that's "Renewing America's Promise" written on the drum of Florida A&M marching band. I enlarged and lightened it so that you could see it better.
This was TIVO'd on my computer. I have the option to grab frames off of my HD recording, which is how I got this image.

Now I ask you: how did that logo get on that drum? You know, the presidential logo in the middle of the President's new motto?

Keep in mind, it wasn't just on that drum. It was on the front of floats, and other places that I saw in the parade route.
Now ask yourself: how would you feel if you saw President Bush's logo all over the band instruments of his inauguration, along with his presidential seal?

I get the feeling that we are about to experience the most crass marketing that has ever been enacted by any president. If this parade is any indication, every federal government item is soon going to say "Renewing American's Promise" on it.
Which just makes this administration all the more creepy.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Smaller inauguration

Salon asked for one in 2005, quoting the NYT, who also thought that a lavish celebration was out of place during tough economic times.
In Sunday's New York Times, John Tierney examined the delicate balancing act administrations face when throwing a lavish inauguration celebration against the backdrop of unsettling world events. Tierney wrote that inaugurations "become even trickier during times of war, particularly when television images of dancers in black tie can be instantly juxtaposed with soldiers in body armor."

I guess they got over it?

Guess whose inviting the rich to his inauguration?

First, according to ABC, there were the concerts:

While hundreds of thousands of Americans spent hours in the cold to enjoy the "We Are One" inaugural concert Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial, a clutch of Obama's top donors could watch from a heated tent near the performers, courtesy of the president-elect's Inaugural Committee.

Uh huh.

Stay tuned: your instructions are coming

Obama wants you to stay tuned for future instructions.
Ack.

A good article on Lincoln and Obama

Obama is trying to follow Lincoln's footsteps for his inaugeration. In this article on Bloomburg, author Hans Nichols explores the comparisons. In it, Obama says this:
“I’m a practical-minded guy,” he said. “And you know one of my heroes is Abraham Lincoln.”

There are few things that Obama could have said that would annoy me as much as that quote.

I'm a big Lincoln fan. I own a book of his personal writings that I've read a couple of times. I'm fascinated by the history of a man who saw hundreds of thousands of US soldiers die at his own hands, due to the very tough choice that he had to make.

Lincoln made that choice for two reasons:
Firstly, to preserve the union of the US.
Secondly, to eliminate the horror of slavery.

Both are pretty good reasons. Right? And no president in modern time has had to make those types of choices. Right?
But wait... that's not true.

When Iraq voided its treaty of surrender - by continuing to deny UN inspectors access to weapons sites - Bush made the case to enforce the UN resolution. In addition, he made the case that we needed to free Iraq from a brutal dictator.

He knew that US troops would die. When American papers cried for us to get out of Iraq, he stayed in. When protesters pulled body bags out onto the streets to remind the public of those deaths, Bush remained steadfast.
Because of our involvement in Iraq, that country now has its first ever democratically elected government.

Remember those people who were dancing in the streets holding their purple fingers in the air despite threats of death to anyone who voted?
That's the power of democracy.
That's what we bought to Iraq.

Remember what Barack said about Iraq?
He wanted us out. More then a year ago. He opposed the surge. He said that we lost the war. He would have pulled out of Iraq and left those people to die. Even worse, he would have left them under the rule of a dictator, and ignored the violations of the surrender treaty that Iraq signed. He would have capitulated to a dictator for the simple reason that he didn't have the courage to do what needed to be done.

If Obama were in charge of the civil war, he would have stopped the war after the first 2,000 deaths. He would have asked for a timetable for the pullout of the confederate territories. He certainly would have opposed Sherman's march, which was the brutality that ended the war.

Obama not only would have lost the Civil war. He never would have fought it.
Which makes the comparison to Lincoln all the more absurd.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Another creepy "Yes we can" song


Boy George performing yet another "Yes we can" song. Its not as creepy as the kids who were singing 'yes we can'. (That video has since been removed, because so many people left not-so-nice comments about indoctrinating little kids.) But I get the feeling its just another in the long list of praise songs for Obama.

While you're watching this positive message about how we can do anything if we put our minds to it, remember that Obama wanted us to pull out of Iraq and abandon those people when they have their first-ever democratically elected government.

Monday, January 12, 2009

Poll focused fear-mongering

I thought that the Republicans were the party of fear?
President-elect Barack Obama’s top political aides are transplanting their campaign tactics to the policy arena, using data from polls and focus groups to shape the debate over a stimulus plan that may cost at least $775 billion.

Look for the words 'recovery' and 'investment' to be used a lot. And the phrase 'the sky is falling'.

Comic book heros

Obama was a big fan of comic books.

Please don't get me wrong. I have friends who collect. But then again, they weren't senators who got carried away with it. According to AP:

His Senate Web site used to have a photo of him posing in front of a Superman statue.


Oh. So the guys from Marvel comics put Obama in their latest Spiderman book.

Oh, man.
This can't possibly get more creepy.

Obamunism, Carol Browner, and the International Socialists


Time for me to go out and buy one of these shirts.

Earlier, I posted a short bio of a number of Obama's appointments. The one that took me most by surprise was Carol Browner, who he appointed to the position of "Energy Czar."

First, I found out that she used to work for uber-environmentalist Al Gore.

Then I found out that she worked for Citizen Action, an environmental group. Is it any surpirse, then, that I found her ties to a socialist organziation?

Last week, conservative blogs were buzzing with the news that Carol Browner was part of the International Socialist organization. She was one of the leaders of an organization in that group called "Commission for a Sustainable World Society." Last week, I linked to this page where you could read a short profile of her.

This week, the profile has disappeared.
The Washington Times picked up on the story, and asked the Obama administration about it. Guess what their response was?
Mr. Obama's transition team said Mrs. Browner's membership in the organization is not a problem and that it brings experience in U.S. policymaking to her new role.

Yep. That's completely predictable. They think her participation in a socialist organization is a plus.

Friday, January 09, 2009

Mike Brown vs. Leon Panetta

Mike Brown, in case you don't remember the name, was the head of FEMA.
When the media criticized the federal reaction to Katrina, they focused on the head of FEMA. They said that Bush had hired a man who was completely unqualified to take that position, and that he was just there as a friend of Bush.

Okay.

Obama just hired Leon Panetta to head up the CIA. Panetta has never worked for the CIA. He has never worked in intelligence. Its not his field of expertise.
Does this mean that Obama is a bumbling idiot, as Bush was portrayed for hiring Brown?

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Is someone holding the media's family hostage?

In the first few seasons of my favorite television show, "24", there was usually a plotline where someone was forced to do something that they didn't like, because a family member was being held hostage.

Watching the news lately, I'm convinced that someone in the Obama administration is holding hostage a family member from each news outlet.
That's the only reason that I can possibly think of for why the press has stopped asking questions.

For instance, here is a CNN article on the president-elect's spending bill of nearly a Trillion dollars. The focus of the article? How Obama is going to get rid of earmarks!
Banning earmarks -- usually pet projects of Congress members inserted in money bills unrelated to the projects -- is one of several steps the president-elect wants to take with the stimulus bill.
What do you notice about the sentence, above?
I'll give you a hint: Its missing the words 'according to the president-elect', or 'the president-elect says'. It unquestionably accepts the idea that Obama is getting rid of earmarks.
For those of us who have taken journalism classes, its a blaring ommision.
Go there and read the article. Tell me where the reporter left the building, and where they just let Obama's PR person write the article as a press release. Heck, compare it with this AP article, which uses the proper "Obama said" venacular.

Speaking of AP, here is an AP story on Obama's recovery plan.
Washington bureaucrats have a reputation for being able to spend taxpayer money real fast. But, believe it or not, spending it fast enough is one of the biggest hurdles President-elect Barack Obama's team faces in putting together an economic recovery measure.

Yes, you read that right. According to AP... Obama needs to spend money. Quick!
I've never known a Democrat to get into office and forget to spend money. But I guess its possible that the Democratically run congress won't approve of the spending fast enough?
Here's a trick: name a congressional democrat who has objected to government spending.

The point is that the media has gone from cheerleading for Obama to actively working as an Obama spokesperson. Which should make everyone kind of wary, unless someone is actually holding their family member hostage.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Socialist head of Energy Department???

When Obama put Carol Browner in charge of the energy department, I read up on her. Or I thought I had. I mean, I had read a few profiles of her in the news. Based on that, I did a brief profile of her and other Obama appointees.

Somehow, they missed this little tidbit:
Carol Browner is an honest to god socialist.


When I accused Obama of being a socialist, its because he belonged to the socialist democrat New Party. (More to come on that.) But people argued with me that The New Party claimed that he was a member, and that we have no record of Obama himself declaring him a member of The New Party.

Okay, fine. Then why does he keep hiring socialists?

Here are the facts. Carol belongs to the Socialist International. You can find her profile on this page.

Here's the Constitution of Socialist International, and something to leave you with from that Constitution:
Human rights include economic and social rights; the right to form trade unions and to strike; the right to social security and welfare for all, including the protection of mothers and children; the right to education, training and leisure; the right to decent housing in a liveable environment, and the right to economic security. Crucially, there is the right to both full and useful employment in an adequately rewarded job. Unemployment undermines human dignity, threatens social stability and wastes the world's most valuable resource.
If you read the Constitution of the Socialist International, it almost mirror's exactly what The New Party says. Which makes sense, because they pull from the same source materials.

I wonder how long it will take until the media actually notices that the guy in the White House has Socialist Democrat policies?

Monday, January 05, 2009

Obama to create 600,000 new Democratic votes

Or as we like to call them, government jobs.
According to the Political Punch, who did the math:

The president-elect says he wants to "create three million new jobs" -- this is a change from a few weeks ago, when he said he wanted the plan to create OR SAVE two million jobs.

He says the "No. 1 goal of my plan ... is to create three million new jobs, more than 80 percent of them in the private sector.”

If you do the math: 20 percent of three million means 600,000 new government employees.


Oh man. Goodbye to all of the talk about controlling the deficit.I did some more math, and I figured out the following:

Approximately 125 million people voted in the last election. Let's presume that Obama hires 600,000 of them into government jobs. He just shifted about 0.5% of the vote into the Democratic party.


You can also read the text of Obama's statement here, on the Politburo website.

Senator (?) Roland Burris

For those of you who don't know, Roland Burris is a politician from Illinois. My crooked governor Blago just appointed him as the replacement senator for Barack Obama's open seat.

This is perfectly 'legal' for Blago to do, and its legal for Burris to accept. That doesn't make it a smart move on either person's part.

When the press started covering Roland Burris, I wondered what alternate universe they were reporting from.
For instance, USA Today said:
Burris has been free of controversy
For nearly two decades in office Roland Burris avoided the kind of controversy that has helped define his home state's rough and tumble political scene.

In a chat on Slate, Edward Clelland, who has been covering this story for several sources, said:
Burris no longer had a political career in Illinois. He was an uninspiring but honest state office holder in the '80s and '90s, but since then, he had lost three races for governor and a race for mayor.

I'll never understand how those reporters came to that conclusion.
Here are a few stories that give a more complete picture.
From Yahoo News:
Burris a Registered Lobbyist, but Tardy on His Paperwork
Roland W. Burris, the former state attorney general picked by Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich to fill the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama, is a registered lobbyist who appears to be out of compliance with federal lobbying laws.

This is important because of some of the contracts that Burris' law firm has been involved with. For instance, did you know that Burris' law firm is responsible for looking over minority contracts with the state's tollway authority?
Given that, this Sun-Times article is all the more the more important to read:

Burris, his lobbying firm, his clients and a law firm that includes him donated $127,986 to Blagojevich since the governor took office. Burris himself gave $4,500 to the governor, including $1,000 last June. His lobbying firm, Burris & Lebed Consulting, gave $10,796 in cash and services. The law firm with which Burris is affiliated kicked in $5,000 for the governor. Burris' consulting firm has gotten $294,546.30 in state contracts under Blagojevich.

Burris' lobbying clients -- which were under contract with the state for $3.09 million while he represented them -- contributed $107,690 for the governor.

Let me sum this up:
My crooked governor Blago is accused of trying to sell a senate seat for cash, in-kind donations, and appointments.
While under a cloud of corruption, he appointed Roland Burris to that senate position.
Roland Burris... the same Roland Burris who has contributed thousands to the governor's campaign, and who owns a lobbying firm who has sent hundreds of thousands of dollars the governor's way through their clients.
(For those of you who have forgotten; lobbyists are people who funnel money to the politician to get their way.)

-And some media are claiming that Burris is untouched by corruption?

Ack.

Saturday, January 03, 2009

One TRILLION dollars (or, "What are you doing after the Obama rally?")

After the Obama rally in grant park

Okay, kids.

It was cute and everything to see all of you in your fresh, new, Obama t-shirts talking about change and rallying against Bush, and how he 'ruined' the so-called 'Clinton surplus' that we had.

And even though I hated the American-idol run to the presidency - complete with e-mail campaigns to call in your pledge - I was struck by how much you young ones wanted to get involved in politics. -And, you know, understand things. Such as, the economy of the US of America. And stuff.

Pretty much the only thing that we agreed upon was that spending needs to stop going on unchecked. The difference is that I blamed the Democratic congress, and you blamed Bush.
No matter. Bush is about to leave.

Which leaves us with your president-elect, who up until recently, was preaching against spending away our children's future with deficit spending. And stuff.

So could we both get on board here, and stop this ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in NEW SPENDING that the incoming moneybags-in-chief is proposing???
And stuff?
Or is your children's future suddenly not as important, because that was all BS, and you never believed it for one second?