Unlike Obama, she actually does have small donors

Remember how Obama kept saying that most of his campaign contributions came from small donors?

Uh.
Turns out its not true.
Guess who actually is getting small donors? According to AP, Michelle Bachman.

...Bush and Obama depended more on thunderstorms of money — bundles of checks collected by big-money donors, each written for the maximum amount allowed by law. Bachmann's accounts are instead filled with small contributions sent by devoted supporters.

Cool for Michelle. Although that won't quell the liberal belief that she's being sponsored by corporations.

World's Worst Gaffe

I've seen some ridiculous gaffes by Obama, but this one took the cake.

I need to start by introducing you to Medal Of Honor winner, Sergeant First Class Jared C. Monti. Jared lost his life in Afghanistan. According to the official website:

With complete disregard for his own safety, Staff Sergeant Monti twice attempted to move from behind the cover of the rocks into the face of relentless enemy fire to rescue his fallen comrade. Determined not to leave his Soldier, Staff Sergeant Monti made a third attempt to cross open terrain through intense enemy fire. On this final attempt, he was mortally wounded, sacrificing his own life in an effort to save his fellow Sohttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifldier. Staff Sergeant Monti's selfless acts of heroism inspired his patrol to fight off the larger enemy force

The president presented his parents with the Congressional Medal Of Honor, after giving this 14 minute speech on Jared.


It is a moving ceremony, one which I'm fairly certain that the parents will not forget.

Oh...
...but our president did...


While visiting Fort Dunn, the president said:

“First time I saw the 10th Mountain Division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, was the first person who I was able to award the Medal of Honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously.”

This truly is the worst possible gaffe the president could have committed.
Now granted, he did call the parents to apologize. But this fits under the heading of "imagine if Bush said this...?"
Because if this were any other president, we'd still be talking about this today.

Jon Stewart can't admit he was wrong

I hate, hate, hate when people can't admit when they were wrong.

No one is more problematic at this then Jon Stewart. Granted, admitting that you're wrong isn't as funny as sticking to the premise that you're right in lieu of the fact that Politifact screwed you to the wall.

So let's start here. 3 minutes in... Stewart says:

"Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers? … Fox viewers, consistently, every poll."

This is not true.
Politifact Fact-checked the statement, and called Stewart out on it.
According to one media study they cited:

Fox actually scored better than its two direct cable-news rivals -- MSNBC, which is a liberal counterpoint to Fox, and CNN, which is considered more middle-of-the-road. Also scoring lower than Fox were local television news, the evening network news shows and the network morning shows.

Ouch.
Politifact concludes, after showing several different studies:

So we have three Pew studies that superficially rank Fox viewers low on the well-informed list, but in several of the surveys, Fox isn’t the lowest, and other general-interest media outlets -- such as network news shows, network morning shows and even the other cable news networks -- often score similarly low. Meanwhile, particular Fox shows -- such as The O’Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity’s show -- actually score consistently well, occasionally even outpacing Stewart’s own audience.

Of course, Jon Stewart admitted he was wrong, and moved on.
Oh wait.
He didn't.
Ugh. Like the rest of the left, he doubled down instead of admitting that he was wrong. Stewart went on the air to say that if he was wrong, it was because he watches Fox News... whom he still claims is consistently wrong.


To keep his claim true, Stewart quotes a number of Politifacts.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Fox News False Statements
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Uh, but wait wait wait.

Fox was never reviewed by Politifact, as a network.

They DO review individual people who have made statements on opinion programs, and then they find the statements to be true or false. In fact, if you notice, the very first quote that Stewart refers to comes from Glenn Beck. After that, he kinda doesn't mention/refer to the fact that the statements he's quoting are from opinion makers on Fox.
However, Politifact does list them in one, handy, statement. What you'll notice is that Stewart is using statements from Beck, Palin, O'Reilly, and even Karl Rove as "Fox News" statements.

Now most people understand that if you list off a bunch of commentaries, you'll find people who have statements that aren't completely true. And if Stewart did that, he'd have to admit that the same thing happens on other networks.

Like... I dunno... lets do this with MSNBC.

Olbermann:

"Subsidies for oil and gas companies make up 88 percent of all federal subsidies. Just cutting the oil and gas subsidies out would save the U.S. government $45 billion every year."

FALSE

"Yes, this would be the same congressman (Rep. Pete Hoekstra) who last year Tweeted the whereabouts of a top-secret mission to Iraq."

FALSE


Maddow:

"Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year."

FALSE

Fox News "said the New Black Panther Party decided the election for Barack Obama."

FALSE

"President Bush never did one interview with the New York Times during his entire presidency."

FALSE

Gov. Sarah Palin "got precisely zero support for her call for Alaska's Democratic Senator Mark Begich to resign because Ted Stevens' corruption conviction was overturned."

FALSE

Ed Schultz:

Under changes being debated, state employees in Wisconsin "who earn $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year might have 20 percent of their income just disappear overnight."

FALSE

With his decision on whether to fire Gen. Stanley McChrystal, President Obama "has to fix yet another problem he inherited from the Bush administration."

PANTS ON FIRE

"Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu received almost $1.8 million from BP over the last decade."

PANTS ON FIRE

(Whew... starting to get tired from all of this copy/paste)

Joe Scarborough:

The health care reform bill "is the largest tax increase in U.S. history."

FALSE

President Obama has never received a paycheck from a profitmaking business in his entire life.

FALSE

Lawrence O'Donnel:

"There are no similar clips of Newt Gingrich talking about how ineffective President Bush was in trying to control North Korea."

FALSE


Now I'm not even on the staff of Comedy Central writers, and I came up with that 'short' list, from just 4 people who appear on MSNBC. Should I presume that Stewart did the same thing as I did, when he researched Fox? That he took the time to compare it to other networks?

Of course he didn't. Because like many people on the left, he can't admit that his premise was wrong. He will continue to look for evidence that proves him right, ignoring anything to the contrary.

There is a thin difference between ignorance and arrogance.
Ignorance is not knowing.
Arrogance is the presumption that you already know.

Our real liabilities; long term US debt

The biggest problem that we're going to encounter in the future is the money that the government has not allocated, for items they promised to pay for.

In a corporate environment, these are known as liabilities. Corporations have to use accrual accounting instead of cash accounting.

In cash accounting, its real easy to calculate your balance. You just indicate revenue - expenses.
So if you spent $50,000, but made $60,000, you would indicate $10,000 of profit.
Now here's where things get complicated.
Let's say that you owe $200,000 to someone who billed you for services to your business, but you didn't have to pay the bill for another 2 years.
In cash accounting, you still had $10,000 of profit. On paper, your business is making money.

Corporations can't use cash accounting for this reason. They have to indicate what their liabilities are on their balance sheet. Somewhere on their financial statement, they would have to indicate that they owe $200,000.

How does this relate to our government?
Our government does what no business would ever be allowed to do: they put off obligations (money owed), often sell bonds to cover these expenses, and then indicate a balance that doesn't reflect this debt.

If I've lost you, you can always read this USA Today report that puts it into perspective.

The $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations amounts to $528,000 per household. That's more than five times what Americans have borrowed for everything else — mortgages, car loans and other debt. It reflects the challenge as the number of retirees soars over the next 20 years and seniors try to collect on those spending promises.

Most people are familiar with the fact that we are currently $14 trillion in debt as a country, or that we are now running deficits of over $1 Trillion a year. In this post, I explained how the current administration is now running a deficit averaging $1.7 Trillion a year. But most people aren't aware of how much we truly are in debt.

So as you listen to congress talk about cutting $10 billion, or even $50 billion from the budget, and as you hear congressmen protecting their pet projects, remember that figure: $61.6 Trillion.

Obama campaign "misleads" in video

ABC News reports that Obama's 2012 campaign is trying to mislead its minions in their latest video. The video is reportedly a compilation of issues that the Republicans talked about in the latest debate. However...

...the video, which Messina calls a “highlight reel” and the DNC titled “What in the world are they talking about?” selectively uses clips from the 2-hour forum suggesting that the candidates were focused on idiotic issues, or battles from the past, when all of the topics the video hammers the Republicans for talking about were ones they were asked about at the forum.

Huh... the DNC is dishonest? When did that happen?
Here's the video, below.



If you want to compare that to what they were actually asked about... watch the CNN video. The debate actually starts 2:15 in:

My special hate for 9/11 conspiracy theorists

I hate people who cannot see logic.

I'm not talking about those who have actual mental deficiencies. I understand that a child with a mental limitation or someone who has a severe and limiting disease is not capable of the thought process that we know as logic.

However, there are adult creatures known as 9/11 conspiracy theorists who actively ignore logical thought in order to come to the conclusion that a plane didn't actually fly into a building on 9/11. Or, alternately, that a burning building cannot collapse due to structural damage.

This idiot, the one who uploaded this video, is one of those tools:


Now naturally, upon seeing this video, I tried to explain to the idiot in question that elevators can fail if there is a plane that flies into a building. Because while all modern elevators have safety features, they all have limitations. They were not meant to keep an elevator from falling after the cables are cut and when tons of burning liquid kerosene are poured on top of them.

This idea was not acceptable to the idiot who posted this. He/she/it responded with:

Approximately eight 100-millionths of one percent of elevator rides resulted in an anomaly ..... that about sums it up. So right there your odds are 1 in 80,000,000,000. Now multiply those odds with all the other anomolies, like three steel buildings collapsing from fire in one event on the same, when a steel building has never collapsed from greater fires. NORAD off duty .... etc. The official story, with your fireball down shafts, is at least a billion trillion to 1, if even that

I wanted to reply to IranContraScumDid911. But not too ironically, they blocked me from posting anything else as a response. Which makes sense, because they also wrote this:

Four plane crashes disappeared in one event? What are the odds not one tail or wing would never be recovered? The black boxes disappeared?

I'm going to work backwards.
The only way that the conspiracy theorist could believe that four planes did NOT disappear in one event is if they honestly thought that the bulk of New York who SAW the planes fly into the two twin towers were all lying. They furthermore would have to believe that the people in the Pentagon, who lost friends, were also lying. Finally, they'd have to believe that the people who were working in ATC, who literally dedicate their lives to the idea of planes not running into things, were complicit in this lie. Its kinda like believing that a hospital full of doctors were all involved in killing 400 patients on the same day. But I digress.
The point is that when the writer says:

"What are the odds not one tail or wing would never be recovered?"

...They are actively denying that the four planes were witnessed hitting said items. They are denying that the video of the first plane hitting the first tower (taken by firefighters, no less) is real. They are denying that the second plane hitting the second tower (taken by scores of different news outlets) is real.
The odds of you recovering a wing of a plane that hits a building while traveling at 600mph is approximately 0.0000001%. That's a guess on my part.


100% of cases where a commercial airplane has slammed into a building has resulted in elevator failures. The fact that you cannot grasp this (or that you believe that because the odds of non-airplane-related-elevator-crashes are so great) boggles my mind.
Here's a parallel thought for you to ponder. Your chances of sitting in your office on an average day and having a plane plow into your building and immolate you in a gigantic ball of flame are 5,000,000,000,000,000 to 1.

The mere fact that someone can't believe that an elevator would fail in a building that was slammed into by an airplane hurts my brain. Its someone who believes in a perfect world.... where nothing fails, even under the most extreme circumstances.
Again, if it were an actual kid, I'd have no problem. Kids have trouble grasping simple concepts. Adults shouldn't.
Planes that smash into buildings are annihilated.
Buildings that are hit by commercial aircraft suffer severe damage.

Elevators that have a plane fly through their shaft can fail.

Guess how many waivers for the new health care law have been issued?

The Obama administration approved 204 new waivers to Democrats' healthcare reform law over the past month, bringing the total to 1,372.

Neat.
Now the Hill article makes it clear that they are only temporary, and that its just for one part of the health care law. However, how shitty can a law be, when you have to issue 1,372 temporary waivers for companies affected by it?
For that matter, how fair can it be?

Daley's post mayor payday

Great article by NBC.
It turns out that Mayor Daley can keep 1 million worth of campaign contributions that he never spent. So the next time you pay for parking, allow yourself to wonder out loud about that parking meter scandal... and how Daley sold the rights to parking in the city to LAZ.

Paul Krugman predicted 7.3 unemployment with the stimulus

The other day, I found myself in another stupid Facebook debate with someone didn't know their facts.

I should be used to this by now. But it never fails to get to me when someone who leans to the left insists that I'm uninformed while saying something that's provably not true.

This all started when a friend posted a link to a Paul Krugman article.
I called Paul an idiot (my bad) and then stated why he was an idiot: That all of the spending he championed failed to bring down the unemployment rate.

Now I'd reprint the debate verbatim if I could. But as it happens far too often, a friend of my friend kept using insults until the original friend blocked us both from her Facebook account.
So by trying to correct the record with facts, suddenly, I'm the asshole. Even though I wasn't the one calling her other friend names.

I know. I know... I'm losing the point of why I wrote this.
Paul Krugman was for spending shitloads of money through the government. We all agree on this. He believed that it would result in a lower unemployment rate.
It is also true that Krugman was upset that only $787 BILLION dollars was being spent on the stimulus program. Krugman believed this to be small. Which makes sense.
I mean, if you're going to be a Keynesian economist, why wouldn't you believe in spending more money? Ideally, by spending 50 Trillion Dollars, we'd go into a huge economic boom that would never be matched! Right?

My friend's friend insisted that Krugman was right. That the stimulus was too small... which is why it had no effect. He said that Krugman readers would know that Paul predicted that the stimulus bill would fail to reduce the unemployment rate.
But Paul didn't say that.
In fact, Krugman said:

Unemployment is currently about 7 percent, and heading much higher; Obama himself says that absent stimulus it could go into double digits. Suppose that we’re looking at an economy that, absent stimulus, would have an average unemployment rate of 9 percent over the next two years; this plan would cut that to 7.3 percent, which would be a help but could easily be spun by critics as a failure.

Wow. A 7.3% unemployment rate would be spun into a 'failure' of Obama's $787 economic plan. Presuming, of course, that the president didn't have a fawning media that would change his every failure into rainbows and unicorns.

In case you didn't know this (or were arguing with me on Facebook), the nonfarm unemployment rate for April of 2011 was 9.0%.
I created this handy chart to show you what's the stimulus plan results have looked like, vs. the predicted results. Note that the uptick in unemployment in April has not been added.

Calling Osama Obama

A lot was made when a Fox affiliate accidentally put Obama's name in the screen crawl when Osama was killed.
Keep in mind, it was an affiliate.
But more importantly, they were not the only one to do so in the news.

Crack MSNBC reporter Norah O'Donnel tweeted:
"Obama shot and killed"

Of course, the left didn't go apeshit over that comment.

A Politifact you may have missed

When someone says a phrase like, "Every scientist agrees" or "All economists will tell you", it grates on my nerves.
Because economists don't agree. If they did, there would be one economic theory and we'd all follow it.
Scientists have a similar problem. The job of a scientist is to challenge conventional wisdom and question knowledge as we understand it.

Naturally, when I heard Obama say:

Economists from across the political spectrum agree that if we don't act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment and the American dream slipping further and further out of reach...

...I laughed.
It presumed a world full of Keynesian economists, economists who believe in government intervention.
Luckily, Politifact debunks this notion:

"...But we do know that Obama is wrong when he says there is "no disagreement that we need action by our government." Clearly, there is disagreement. We rate his statement False."

The DrudgeReport post that started it all

The Drudge Manifesto is not a great book. However, it has one moment in it that was well worth reading. Its the story of how Drudge found himself sitting on the political story of the decade, and how he realized that it truly was a big deal.

In the Drudge Manifesto, Matt describes the moment before he pressed the return key. He had double checked his facts, and apparently, his gut told him that the reaction that he was getting from everyone confirmed that it was real. Still... he knew that the moment he touched the return key, he was making a huge accusation.

Here's how it read on the day it happened:

Web Posted: 01/17/98 23:32:47 PST -- NEWSWEEK KILLS STORY ON WHITE HOUSE INTERN

BLOCKBUSTER REPORT: 23-YEAR OLD, FORMER WHITE HOUSE INTERN, SEX RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT

**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**

At the last minute, at 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, NEWSWEEK magazine killed a story that was destined to shake official Washington to its foundation: A White House intern carried on a sexual affair with the President of the United States!

I used to write for a college newspaper. We never had anything that big to write about. Yet, every time, before you sent a story off, you'd reread it to make sure you weren't saying anything you'd regret later. Not just because of lawsuits. (Libel is a huge issue in the newsroom) You didn't want to write anything that you would have to retract later.

So when I read that part in the Drudge Manifesto, it gave me chills. Imagine having the biggest story of the year. The political story of the decade. You don't have an editor to look over your shoulder. Its just you, and your keyboard. And your accusation is against the most powerful man in the world.

I love a lot of things about my country, but the freedom of speech is probably what I value the greatest. There is something very comforting to me that Drudge was able to break this story with minimum repercussion (barring the democrats, themselves, who first called it an outrageous lie, and then openly defended the president having an affair with a 22 year old).

As I sit here behind my own keyboard, I'm reminded of both the privilege that I have, and the responsibility that comes with it.
With that in mind, from here on, I promise to renew my commitment to make sure that what I post is not only relevant, interesting, and topical... but that I can say without hesitation that I believe it to be 100% true.

For the debt limit, before he was against it

ABC news caught up to Obama, and asked him about one of his biggest flip flops since Gitmo.
When asked if it was a mistake to vote against the debt limit as a senator, the president said:

I think that it’s important to understand the vantage point of a Senator versus the vantage point of a…President. When you’re a Senator, traditionally what’s happened is this is always a lousy vote. Nobody likes to be tagged as having increased the debt limit for the United States by a trillion dollars… As President, you start realizing, "You know what? We-- we can’t play around with this stuff. This is the full faith in credit of the United States." And so that was just a example of a new Senator, you know, making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I’m the first one to acknowledge it.

That's a very long winded way of saying that as a senator, he was trying to take political advantage of a situation. But now that he's a president, he has to be an adult.

I'm glad that the president is acknowledging his mistakes. (Even if he is doing that whole "I'm better then most people" thing, while doing it)
What appalls me is that at no point does he recognize how completely craven it was for him to "play politics" with trillions of debt.

"But is he constitutionally qualified to become president?"

I just wanted to remind everyone who first bought up the controversy about a presidential candidates citizenship:

"I would like to see Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) as a presidential candidate, but I heard that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. The Constitution requires that a president be a "natural born" citizen of the United States. Is Sen. McCain barred from the presidency? – Steven R. Pruett, Falls Church, Va."

That was in 1998.
The writer wrote to a political beat reporter for the Washington Post named Ken Rubin. Ken answered, in part:

"McCain has an adoring media on his side, and a reputation as someone who will make the difficult choices. What he shouldn't have is any question about his eligibility to be president."

An adoring media on his side. Huh. That sounds familiar.
Anyway, the point is, Barack isn't the first person who's birth has been questioned, as the report points out. (There's more there... I won't belabor it. Read the article.)
The biggest difference is that this adoring media finds race to be the motivator, but when McCain's detractors were questioning his citizenship, everyone understood it to be about:
1) politics
and
2) whether or not he was a citizen

Just thought I'd point that out.

Max Keiser is trying to get you to be violent

When you start suggesting that you should "hang bankers", you're just a tiny bit away from being a complete idiot.



It feels like it was just yesterday that the left was complaining about the violent rhetoric of the right.
I love how the bankers point out how inconsistent Max's arguments are.

Beck, Obama, and the Anti-Christ

I've been watching a steady stream of misinformation and straight out lies about Glenn Beck lately.
No matter what you think of the man, its not cool to lie about him.

So let's start with the lie. Which, naturally, starts with Media Matters:

Beck failed to ask Hagee about controversial statements, instead asked him if Obama might be the Antichrist

Reading that, one might conclude that Glenn Beck actually thought that it was a valid question to ask Hagee if Obama was the anti-Christ. Right?
That can't POSSIBLY be taken out of context.

I mean, Huffpo carried it too!
And those sounds formed a question that sounded out across the airwaves unto disbelieving ears. That question: "Is Barack Obama the anti-Christ."

We are not making this up. Glenn Beck, serious newsman, needed to find out if Barack Obama was the Devourer of Worlds, Son of Harlots, Bearer of the Mark of the Beast. John Hagee had to be thrilled by the question: somehow, Beck managed to make Hagee look reasonable.

You'll note that on that link, it says 'video not found'.

Huh. I wonder why.

Beck has a video.

You should watch it. It pretty much proves that both Media Matters and Huffpo can. Not. Be Trusted.

More debt from 2009-2011 then from 2001-2007

This is from my latest research.


US DEBT:
Jan/2001 $5.7 Trillion
Jan/2007 $8.6 Trillion

In the 6 years of Republican control, the debt was raised by 2.9 Trillion.

Jan/2009 $10.6
Jan/2011 $14.0

From 2007 to 2009, the debt rose by $2 Trillion.
2 Trillion.
In 2 years of Democrat control of congress.

Now that was NOTHING compared to the drunken spending that would ensue after a Democrat took the presidency.

By this year, this January, our debt is 14 Trillion.

In two years, the president and congress have raised the debt by 3.4 Trillion.

Now I'm watching Democrats calling Republicans hypocrites.

Democrats and Obama have raised the debt by more in two years then the Republicans and Bush did in 6 years... and democrats have the balls to call the REPUBLICANS IRRESPONSIBLE?

2010 Afghanistan Troop casualties great than 2001-2006

From ICasualties:

2001 12
2002 49
2003 48
2004 52
2005 99
2006 98
2007 117
2008 155

Combining the two terms that Bush was in office, the total number of military fatalities in Afghanistan was 630.
From 2001 to 2006, the total was 358.

If you included 2007, that number would be 475. Or 7 more deaths then there currently are in 2010.

Let's put this in perspective:
2009 317
2010 468

During the 7 years of the Bush presidency, 630 of our brave soldiers died in Afghanistan.
During the past two years of the Obama presidency, 785 soldiers died in Afghanistan.

Now don't get me wrong. I want our soldiers fighting these battles. However, why is it that Barack, who complained about the deaths of American soldiers, is being given such a clear free pass on this?

Let me put it another way: What would be the response if a McCain/Palin team lost more soldiers in the first two years of their presidency then Bush did in the previous 7?

More history on the term Teabaggers

Earlier, I wrote a brief history on the liberal's use of the word "Teabagger". Since the left has remained obsessed with it, I thought I'd update it.

This is, in part, what Salon wrote:

Truth be told, though, for the most part conservatives haven't actually been using the words in such a way as to lend themselves to double entendre. With one or two exceptions, almost all of it has actually been coming from the left, which seems to have adopted the joke en masse during an earlier round of these protests back in February. After many hours of investigative journalism -- the kind that makes you wish you'd just gone to law school instead -- I think I've traced the meme's birth back to February 27th, when blogs like Instaputz and Wonkette started using it independently of one another. They were inspired by a photo that the Washington Independent's David Weigel shot of one protester carrying a sign that was, if you knew that second meaning, pretty funny: "Tea bag the liberal Dems before they tea bag you !!" (sic).

Since then, the left has used it so often, that Oxford added it to their dictionary.
Here's how various lefty websites covered this event. The Huffington Post:

Keith Olbermann took credit for popularizing the word on MSNBC Tuesday night. But the word "teabagger" actually started to spread after the Washington Independent's David Weigel photographed a protester at the first D.C. Tea Party Protest in February holding the sign, "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You!!"

It actually wasn't Keith, but Rachel. Although you have to give Keith credit for copping to it.
What Mediaite wrote:

Their definition doesn’t touch upon any of the raunchier, more testicular connotations of the word, which Keith Olbermann and Anderson Cooper had a lot of fun with in April. Cooper can take a lot of credit for the popularization of the phrase: in response to David Gergen’s questions about the Republican Party’s abilities to organize and articulate a message, Cooper infamously quipped, “It’s hard to talk when you’re teabagging.”‘

And, just to make sure you can read the original Oxford posting, click on it for the details.

If you give a democrat a cookie

If You Give a Democrat a Cookie from RightChange on Vimeo.

From our friends at Right Change.