A world currency??

Look... I know that there is no way that it would happen.
Heck, having a world currency would be as stupid as getting the government involved in our health care. Wait. What???

Here's the scoop:
Tim Geithner, your treasury secretary, and the guy in charge of socializing the bank and auto industry (slight sarcasm there), was speaking to the Council of Foreign Relations a few days ago.
According to Politico...

Geithner, at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the U.S. is "open" to a headline-grabbing proposal by the governor of the China's central bank, which was widely reported as being a call for a new global currency to replace the dollar, but which Geithner described as more modest and "evolutionary."

Read the article. I don't think that Geithner understood what the governor of China's bank meant. If that's true, its scary that our Treasury secretary didn't understand China's proposal:

The world economic crisis shows the "inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system," Gov. Zhou Xiaochuan said in an essay released Monday by the bank. He recommended creating a currency made up a basket of global currencies and controlled by the International Monetary Fund and said it would help "to achieve the objective of safeguarding global economic and financial stability."

Its completely understandable that the governor of China's Central bank wanted to take over all of the banks. That's China. That's the whole "Hey, how about if we all live under one ruler and have one currency" kind of thinking.
-And like I said, its scary, but possible, that Geithner, the same man who is spending us into oblivion with bailouts, misunderstood China's way of thinking and what the governor said.

But what made Geithner comment - out loud - about the governor of China's ideas without realizing that he is, you know, the Treasury Secretary?

I think it helps if you really think about what the Obama administration is about:
Celebrity.
Getting on television at every opportunity, no matter what the show. Sharing every single thought of yours, no matter how half-assed it is.

But you can't do that when you are the president. You can't do that when you are the Treasury Secretary of the US. Because people will taking your thoughts seriously, even if you don't.

Did Obama know what the Stimulus Bill Contained?

Remember how Obama pushed the Stimulus bill through?
Remember how he said it couldn't wait?

When Obama promoted and signed the bill, known as:

House Report 111-016 - MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR JOB PRESERVATION AND CREATION, INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND SCIENCE, ASSISTANCE TO THE UNEMPLOYED, AND STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL STABILIZATION, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2009, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Did he know that it contained this phrase?

`(iii) The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.

If he didn't.... he shouldn't have signed it.
If he did, then he is a complete fraud and a liar.

So you know, these are the co-sponsors of that bill:
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 1/26/2009
Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] - 1/26/2009
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 1/26/2009
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8] - 1/26/2009
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 1/26/2009
Rep Spratt, John M., Jr. [SC-5] - 1/26/2009
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 1/26/2009
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 1/26/2009
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 1/26/2009

They are either incompetent, or liars. Take your pick.
One thing is for sure... if you believed in Hope&Change from Obama?
WAKE THE FUCK UP!

"Let's make soldiers use private insurance for their wounds!"

No one could be that dumb.
Really... how on earth would anyone come up with the idea of making private insurance companies pay for expenses related to a soldiers injuries while he was serving?

Well, that's what Obama tried to do. From American Legion:

The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

Its such a stupid concept, that I can't believe it ever got out of the realm of discussion in the White House. Somehow, it did. I gotta wonder what asshat tried to pass this through?

This is what the Military.com said about it:

The Obama administration is considering making veterans use private insurance to pay for treatment of combat and service-related injuries.

You need to read the comments.
Here is one of the nicer ones:

Only in America can a man who has no business getting elected as President, get there, only to continue to punish those that fought to get him there. This Administration is already out of control and sending the Nation further down the wrong path. It never ends with this clown. Having been retired now, I'm glad I don't have to follow the orders of such a pathetic man. He appears to have no ethics or morals. What an embarrassment to that Office!

That was one of the ones I could print.
Of course, Veterans groups were outraged. According to Fox:

President Obama's plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs for the treatment of troops injured in service has infuriated veterans groups who say the government is morally obligated to pay for service-related medical care.

The Veterans made a big deal out of it, until Obama's spokesperson came forward, and admitted that they had made a mistake.

"In considering the third-party billing issue, the administration was seeking to maximize the resources available for veterans," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday in a written statement. "However, the president listened to concerns raised by the [veteran service organizations] that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans' and their families' ability to access health care.

What a load of crap. These asshats proposed something really, really dumb.
The only question is why they ever thought it was a good idea.

US is 'opposing' the lawsuit against torture

What does this mean?
It means that the new boss isn't that different from the old boss.

The Obama Administration, taking its first position in a federal court on claims of torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees, urged the D.C. Circuit Court on Thursday to reject a lawsuit by four Britons formerly held there. In addition, the new filing argued that a recent appeals court ruling makes clear that “aliens held at Guantanamo do not have due process rights.”
Really?

Wow. You didn't argue that when Bush was in office.
AP summed it up like this:

The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights

Which proves that Obama was full of crap. Along with everyone who still supports him, after arguing that he was opposed to 'torture.'

POTUS playing it the same as previous administration

After telling us that the detainees couldn't/shouldn't be held, Obama's administration is trying to pretend like they are 'changing':

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who is leading the administration’s effort to develop a new detention regime, took pains to tell the court that the administration’s effort was ongoing, and that its legal position could evolve. Moreover, the administration said its new position only applied to current Guantánamo detainees — not to “military operations generally, or detention in other contexts.”

There is a lot of hair-splitting on the issue with the Obama administration, who is trying to pretend like they've changed the outcome completely, when they really haven't.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm glad tha tthe administration is continuing to hold bad guys. But they were completely dishonest about the previous administration. -And now that its their responsibility to keep bad guys detained, they've gotten religion. So to speak.

Everyone should remember who Charles Freeman is

Obama had his first fundraiser with terrorist William Ayers.
He hired a racist as his 'spiritual advisor'.
Then came this lunatic, Charles Freeman, who he tried to hire on as his chairman for the National Intelligence Council.

"The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth."

The article from Politico details how Obama repeatedly had to distance himself from aides that he had hired who had loony points of view on Palestine.

Speaking of Nationalizing Banks...

Here is an article in the International Herald describing it:

As public outrage swells over the rapidly growing cost of bailing out financial institutions, the administration of President Barack Obama and lawmakers are attaching more and more strings to rescue funds.

I'm not a socialist. I just want to nationalize your banks, health care, and make everyone employed

Audio of Obama denying that he's a socialist.
I just wanted to booklink it, so that years from now, everyone can say "Oh yeah... I guess I should have seen that coming"

Obama reads teleprompter, thanks himself

He's such an idiot.
Okay, so this is what happened:
Obama is having a press conference with the Irish Prime Minister. Obama reads his comments. The Irish Prime Minister goes to read his comments, but then realizes that its Obama's speech.

Obama, trying to 'save the day', gets up to read his speech. Again.

But during that time, someone has switched out his speech with the speech of the Irish Prime Minister's speech... so unknown to Obama, he's reading the PM's speech.
And he doesn't realize it, until he thanks himself.

Now tell me: If this were any other president, wouldn't that be the lead story on the news? About how silly it that the president didn't know he was reading someone elses speech?

Worst President / Dow ever

From the Seattle Times, of all places:

Stocks turn in worst performance for new president

Keep in mind... its Seattle. So they probably think of this as a positive.
The Dow Jones industrial average has fallen 21 percent during Obama's first seven weeks in office. Count back to Election Day and the results are even bleaker: That afternoon, the Dow closed at 9,625. Now it stands at 6,547, a loss of 32 percent.

Who would guess that a man who preaches socialist policies would cause the Dow to drop?

Is Wikipedia really scrubbing criticism of Obama?

A while back, I went to correct some entries on Bill Clinton on Wiki.

I need to point out that I hate Wiki. I think its a dumb idea, because it pretends like its an unbiased source. However, each article ends up being edited by those who have the most passion on any subject, whether or not that passion is correct.

Imagine a Wiki entry on 9/11.
Heck... just visit the site.... and check out the history of edits on September 11th. You'll note that on any given day, some conspiracy nut edits the page.

With that in mind, I kinda cringed when I read this post:

Wikipedia, the online "free encyclopedia" mega-site written and edited entirely by its users, has been deleting within minutes any mention of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama's presidency, with administrators kicking off anyone who writes about the subject, WND has learned.

I normally don't put much weight into World Net Daily. But this time, I do. We've all been there. If you say something negative about Obama, the most passionate people won't hear it. At all.
Its scary.

Obama bristles at being called a Socialist

And I get angry when people say that I love dark chocolate.

The Washington Times sums it up:

President Obama was so concerned that he had appeared to dismiss a question from New York Times reporters about whether he was a socialist that he called the newspaper from the Oval Office to clarify his policies.

Here is the audio of the call.

Charles Krauthammer rips Obama a new one

Forget the 8,570 earmarks in a bill supported by a president who poses as the scourge of earmarks. Forget the "$2 trillion dollars in savings" that "we have already identified," $1.6 trillion of which President Obama's budget director later admits is the "savings" of not continuing the surge in Iraq until 2019 -- 11 years after George Bush ended it, and eight years after even Bush would have had us out of Iraq completely.

Read it. Its brilliant.

How to have a dishonest debate

Every once in a while I wander over into another person's blog to debate a point.

I found "Please Cut The Crap" in a roundabout way. On a political BBS, one of the writers (nicknamed Claimsman) started a thread with a bunch of facts that had no attribution. I was curious as to where he was getting his facts, so I Googled the information contained in the post.
It turned out that the guy had copied and pasted from someone's blog.
That's how I found this post entitled "Why Should We Even Listen To Right Wing Pols?"

If you go there, you'll find that the poster lists off a bunch of 'facts' to explain how 'red' states are fucked up. An example:

Here's a list of the top ten states by median income: 1. Maryland, 2. New Jersey, 3. Connecticut, 4. Alaska, 5. Hawaii, 6. New Hampshire, 7. Massachusetts, 8. California, 9. Virginia, 10. Minnesota.But more interesting are the BOTTOM ten states; 50. Mississippi, 49. West Virginia, 48. Arkansas, 47. Kentucky, 46. Alabama, 45. Louisiana, 44. New Mexico, 43. Oklahoma, 42. Tennessee, 41. South Carolina.

You'll note that the poster never gives an attribution... the source for all of his facts.
Whenever I see that, my 'german shepard ears' perk up. It means that someone is trying to hide the whole truth. Or in this case, he could just be making some crap up.
So I challenged him. I commented on his post. I told him about how stats, when unattributed, can lie.

To explain this, I wrote about divorces and marriage.
You may have read an e-mail that was being passed around a while back about how 'red states' have a higher incident of divorce then 'blue states'.
That e-mail was partially right.
There are a number of red states that have unusually high divorce rates when compared to blue states. But that's because those blue states have much lower marriage rates.

You can't get divorced if you don't get married in the first place.

I wrote all of this in a reply to that blog. It seemed like the post was deleted, so I posted again... and "Milt Shook", the owner of the blog, replied with this:

As for sources, there are multiple sources in many cases, and they're easy enough to find. I didn't see the need to cite them. I'm not sure what the point would be, actually. I stand behind them.

Milt also gave an answer suggesting that he didn't know what a divorce rate was. So again, I suggested that it would add more weight to his posts if he gave sources for them. We wrote back and forth 2 or 3 times. -And then Milt shut down the comments.

I need to note that all of my blog is moderated. I don't expect anything less from anyone who owns a blog. You don't want someone posting something bizarre or inflamatory in response to something you said. But what Milt Shook is doing is dishonest. He's pretending like its an open debate... with no attributions. When you challenge him on it? He shuts you out.

All while complaining that conservatives are shrill and dishonest.

Newsweek confirms what we already know about Obama

Which is, that he's trying to head us towards socialism.
Of course, in typical Newsweek fashion, they want to argue that we're 'already' socialist... and that it was really Bush who did it.

We Are All Socialists Now
In many ways our economy already resembles a European one. As boomers age and spending grows, we will become even more French.

Someone should tell everyone on the left that GWB is a socialist.

Yet ANOTHER article on Obama killing the Dow

From economist Michael J. Boskin

Unfortunately, our history suggests new government programs, however noble the intent, more often wind up delivering less, more slowly, at far higher cost than projected, with potentially damaging unintended consequences. The most recent case, of course, was the government's meddling in the housing market to bring home ownership to low-income families, which became a prime cause of the current economic and financial disaster.

Fantastic businessweek article on Obama's Dow debacle

Please, please, please look at this chart.
The only reason why I'm not printing it is because I don't want to violate the copyright.

Then tell me that Obama has nothing to do with the Dow tanking.
From the article:

"Polls still show the President has strong popularity among the general U.S. population, and Obama continues to command power in Congress. But among investors, fairly or unfairly, there is griping that the new Obama Administration is at least partly to blame for the recent slide in stocks. Since Nov. 4, Election Day, the broad Standard & Poor's 500-stock index is off about 25%, and since Jan. 20, when Obama took office, the "500" is down 15%. "

The graphic kind of makes the point.

Obama's fudging the numbers on Health Care

According to ABC news, Obama's health care initiative started out with the usual slaughtering of facts:

“The cost of health care now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds," Obama said at the opening of his White House forum on health care reform. The problem: That claim, based on a 2001 survey, is simply unsupportable.

The website does an excellent job of running the numbers. I love when when people challenge what politicians say, but especially now.
This is roughly 1/7th of the economy, and the government is planning on taking it over.
I want you to think about that... and then see what the administration is doing... above.

Rush Limbaugh at CPAC

Here is a great YouTube video of Rush at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Watch the full series if you have the time. Rush really nailed what conservatives believe.

If you ever wondered why people love Rush, look at his statements that start at around 6:30 and end at 7:30. It will help explain why we're angry right now.

Obama's budget (or how do you cut a deficit in half? By doubling it!)

That sound that you're hearing is our collective pocket being picked:

An eye-popping $1.75 trillion deficit for the 2009 fiscal year underlined the heavy blow the deep recession has dealt to the country's finances as Obama unveiled his first budget. That is the highest ever in dollar terms, and amounts to a 12.3 percent share of the economy -- the largest since 1945. In 2010, the deficit would dip to a still-huge $1.17 trillion, Obama predicted.

What the fuck? Seriously, people... what the fuck? Obama is literally doubling the deficit. Then he has the balls to suggest that he's going to cut it in half in a few years? What the fuck?

Wall Street Journal explains why taxing the wealthy won't work

Why is it that the Wall Street Journal is the only newspaper to actually run the numbers?
WSJ analyzed Obama's proposal to tax the wealthy to help control the deficit.

A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010.

No kidding?
So you're telling me that Obama's suggestion that we could tax the rich to make up for his budget shortfall was bullshit?
Who woulda guessed?

Obama's appointment to Urban Affairs

Barack is setting up a new agency to funnel money into cities (or more accurately, Democrat voters). According to the Executive order:

In the past, insufficient attention has been paid to the problems faced by urban areas and to coordinating the many Federal programs that affect our cities.

"Coordinating federal programs" is another way of saying "getting money to".
Now the unusual twist to this is that the man that Obama wants to appoint to this position has a little bit of an ethics problem. Guess what it is?

The man who is President Obama's newly minted urban czar pocketed thousands of dollars in campaign cash from city developers whose projects he approved or funded with taxpayers' money, a Daily News probe found.

Ironically, for the position that Obama is hiring him for, this seems to me like his resume. I mean, isn't his job going to be to funnel campaign cash to Obama in exchange for urban redevopment?

Remember: Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, was an advisor to Clinton (who was impeached.)
Then Rahm worked as a fundraiser for Chicago's Mayor Daley.
Let's not forget that Rahm worked as a 'chief campaign strategist' for our impeached governor Blago.

With all of that in mind, getting kickbacks sounds like it would make Obama's new hire overqualified for the job.

Obama's dangerous new budget and health care

Obama's planning to take over health care.
His 'downpayment' is $634 Billion dollars. I don't think I'm understating that if you are spending $634 Billion on a downpayment for anything, you are getting ripped off.
From the article in the Washington Post:

Nearly one-third of the money would be generated by eliminating subsidies that the government pays insurers that sell Medicare managed-care plans. Instead, the Medicare Advantage plans would be put under a competitive bidding process, for a savings of $175 billion over the next decade.

I want for you to re-read that, and think about what it means.
Hospitals and doctors would get $175 Billion less dollars. What do you think it would mean for those hospitals to get $175 Billion less dollars, while being required to cover more people?
Where will those hospitals cut back?
Will they buy less new equipment? Purchase less MRI equipment?
Will they fall behind on technology, because they can no longer afford the latest thing?
Will they have to fire nurses? Janitorial staff?

Because here is the thing: when a hospital is taking in less money... they have to cut back somehow. Like any business, the health care industry can't just operate at the same level with less income.
Why won't Obama mention this? -Or the media, for their part?

John Boehner "Gets it"

From The Hill:

“From everything I’ve seen, it looks like the era of big government spending is back,” he told reporters at a lunch convened by the Christian Science Monitor. “My question to my Democratic friends is how are you going to pay for it?”

The usual way... smoke and mirrors.

First line that I couldn't make up

A combative President Barack Obama warned on Saturday he was bracing for a fight against powerful lobbyists and special interests who sought to pick apart the $3.55 trillion budget he wants to advance his agenda of reform.

What the fuck?
Are you kidding me?
What was David Alexander thinking when he wrote this drivel?

How does a president 'fight special interests' to spend $3.55 TRILLION dollars?
What special interests?
Taxpayers?
People who hate government money being wasted?
Anyone with a soul?

Barack just pushed through the $800 BILLION dollar Pork plan.
That was after Democrats forced through $700 plus BILLION of TARP money.
Now Barack wants to spend $3.55 TRILLION more... and he's afraid of 'special interests'??
Who?
Who's left who isn't getting money already from the federal government???

Seriously, Barack, what the fuck???
And to David Alexander, who bought that line of bullshit hook, line, and sinker: are you kidding me?