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?

Bill Maher on Tavis Smiley, Christianity, Socialism, and Me

I just caught Bill Maher on Tavis Smiley tonight.

I remember when used to like Maher... when he didn't seem to have any particular political loyalty, and didn't feel a need to ridicule Christians.

Bill reminds me of myself when I was 12 years old.
I decided that Christianity was too weird, with the whole 'myth' of a guy that I couldn't see or touch. I knew how everyone else had clearly been duped into buying into that whole religion thing.
To me, there was little difference between Santa Claus and religion. Only I understood that there was no such thing as Jesus, and it hadn't occurred to anyone else who was Christian. It was clear to me that Christians felt a need to believe in something to comfort themselves from the idea of being mortal.

Not too ironically, I ended up joining a Christian Youth group. Not because I was religious, but because I was joining all kinds of groups in high school looking for a place that I could belong. The Chess club was fun, but I wasn't good enough to mount a challenge to the Grand Masters of chess. I was in musical theater, but I wasn't that musical. I was pretty shy. But in the youth group, I kinda fit in. Except for, you know, believing in Christ and stuff.
The Christians I met were good people. Most of them didn't do drugs. That suited me because I didn't either. They believed in the helping others, and they were, as a group, sensitive people. There was a lot of love to go around.

When I think about it now, I find it ironic that I felt so superior to them. Because in some ways, I was jealous of them for having the one thing that I didn't: blind faith in something greater.

When I first joined the youth group, I found myself occasionally trying to point out the holes in Christianity. I thought that if I merely pointed out what didn't fit, the smarter people would give in to the simplicity of logic and I'd 'convert' them.
What I discovered was that there were a lot of smart people who had blind faith... and that 'converting' people into my lack of belief was not a worthy goal.

At some point, it occurred to me: what was I trying to win?
If I succeeded in turning those people into agnostics like me, then what did I gain? Okay... so someone would think like me. But what if I'm the guy who is wrong, and they were right all along?
Moreover, what would they gain?
I realized that a lot of people dedicated their lives to doing good deeds through their religion. That they help people out, avoid anger and confrontation, and sacrifice material gain because of their faith.
What did they gain if I somehow managed to take that away? If I managed to talk them out of their religion?
It seemed like I was just trying to selfishly prove myself right.

When I watched Bill Maher on Tavis Smiley, he reminded me of that 12-year-old version of me.
Maher ridiculed the concept of Faith as a lack of critical thinking: believing in something that you have no knowledge of.
But then he contradicted himself with his own act of faith:
Maher said that he "had a feeling that Obama's" belief system was closer to Bill's.

Obviously, he has no rational basis for this.
Obama has said constantly and repeatedly that his religion and belief in Christ is important to him.
Yet, Maher calls Obama a 'rational thinker.'

Thus the disconnect. The rules are always different with Obama. When other people profess a belief in a higher power, they are delusional for believing in a myth. When Obama does it, we 'all understand' that he 'doesn't really mean it', and we forgive him for lying to get elected.

But that wasn't all.
Bill Maher defended the idea of taking over the banking system and nationalizing it.
He said that Obama should just call it something besides socialism, and take over the banks anyway in a few years.
I just watched him say that, and I still can't believe it.

When it came to more socialism, Maher said:
"I think the model we need to look for is Vladimir Putin"
He argued that Putin took money back from those who had reaped untold profits: "We need that money, so someone needs to go and do a Putin."

Finally, he said that Obama is the first president with a real sense of humor since Kennedy:
"This is the first president who has genuine wit, and its very real"

Again, I used to like Bill Maher. That was sometime before he spent his nights at the Playboy mansion while trying to suggest that he knows how to take care of the little guy. It was before he got into the mode that its okay to take money if you need it.

I don't know exactly when Bill Maher lost his soul. I just relish the irony that he's angry at people who think his needs saving.

By the way, I'm still agnostic. I still have trouble with a belief in God, and Christ, and the bible. But I'm not as bitter as I used to be, and I've met a lot of very smart people who believe in God.
I know that one of us is wrong. I just don't have the evidence to prove that believers are the ones who are incorrect, and that I'm right.

Obama administration's Scott Shepard

He just joined the Kerry administration as a speechwriter. So you might want to know about him. Here are a few of his former articles:
Obama brain trust short on drama, just the way the candidate wants it

Zogby Poll Says Obama Holds Large Lead In Latest Electoral College Count

Stevie Wonder “Signed, Sealed, Delivered” for Obama

Obama vs. Clinton: Who’s got game?

Obama poised to make history

Obama a product of rugged Chicago politics

Democratic convention kicks off with Michelle Obama and salute to Kennedy

Just so you know where he came from.

Obama defends Bush?

The Obama administration, siding with former President George W. Bush, is trying to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House e-mails.

In this article on MyWay news, you have to ask yourself, why is Obama doing this unless he thinks he'll be held to the same standard.

And I plan to eat less pizza

Headline from the Washington Post:
Obama's First Budget Seeks To Trim Deficit
Keep in mind, this guy just passed a $800 BILLION dollar stimulus bill.
What the heck? Isn't anyone at the WP awake?
This is their second paragraph:

In addition to tackling a deficit swollen by the $787 billion stimulus package and other efforts to ease the nation's economic crisis, the budget blueprint will press aggressively for progress on the domestic agenda Obama outlined during the presidential campaign. This would include key changes to environmental policies and a major expansion of health coverage that he hopes to enact later this year.

But outside of that, they're going to trim the deficit?
What the fuck?

Huffington Post gets story wrong

The Huffington Post fell for a hoax that made it appear as though Fox had made racist comments against Obama.
According to Conde Nast, Someone sent them a YouTube video, and the idiots posted it without question.