SNL mocks Obama during his visit to China

NBC recently pulled this video off of youtube, citing "copyright issues". Ha!

A letter to Martha

Dear Martha,

I have been a faithful subscriber to your Living magazine for almost 7 years now. I saved and treasured every issue and have also sent subscriptions over to friends and family as gifts.

I caught your interview with CNN recently where you claimed Sarah Palin was "dangerous" and "boring".

Without regret I am refusing to renew my subscription to Living. As a working class conservative mother to two young children, Sarah Palin is more in touch with us average Americans than Hollywood celebrities, Washington elitists or you, Ms. Stewart.

Sincerely,
C**** K****

Citizens unite!

Good for you, Chicago tea-party goers.

This is why CNN stinks

I've been wondering why mainstream media has largely refused to cover the tea parties that had been sprouting up all over the nation, finally culminating over 800+ tea parties extravaganza on April 15th. I've come to realise that the reason why they've refused to recognize this phenomenon is because they disagree with us. I give you Susan Roesgen, from CNN.



... and the same Roesgen, competent journalist that she is, who had no problem stating that a mask that is a cross between Satan and Hitler is a "Bush look-alike."



Shame on you, CNN.

Fishkill (NY) Tea party

Eye-catching slogans that evening:

CNN, YOU SUCK!

I DON'T PAY MY TAXES EITHER. THAT MEANS I QUALIFY TO BE A CABINET MEMBER

JAIL BARNEY FRANK

DON'T SPREAD MY WEALTH. SPREAD MY WORK ETHIC

DRINK TEA, NOT KOOLAID!

p.s.: CNN, you *do* suck.

Whoops!

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano is now making a news tour to apologize to our veterans and veteran groups that have been offended by the DHS assessment that had been released around April 7th. On CNN's web site, she made it a point that the nation's largest combat veterans group, the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), defended the report.

Busy as I am, I just had to look that up. Read the whole statement.

In essence, the VFW said that the DHS is doing its job and that it made no blanket accusation of that every soldier was capable of being a terrorist; but that they were not pleased with the wording of the report and "hopes DHS tones down the disgruntled military veteran angle in its next edition, and includes other professionals who have paramilitary training, such as the police, Secret Service, FBI, and DHS' own Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.".

No "blanket accusation"? I'm not so sure. Here's a paragraph from pg. 7 of the DHS report:

(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

So did VFW really defend the report? You decide.

DHS report follow-up

Janet Napolitano was just on Fox News defending the DHS's report and stands by their assessment that returning vets are a risk factor, and quoted Timothy McVeigh as an example. I couldn't believe it. That is like using Osama Bin Laden as a representative of the entire Islam religion, is it not?

We're all haters now

Just got back from attending a tea party. The energy was *great*! I'm guessing turnout was close to 2,000? I'll find out. These people were determined and they were ticked off. I'll blog about the tea party tomorrow. In the meantime...

The Dept. of Homeland Security, under the lead of Janet Napolitano has just issued a report titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

Incredibly, while the administration has decided not to use the terms 'war on terror' -- substituting it with 'overseas contingency plans' and events like Sept. 11 are no longer 'terrorist attacks' but 'man-made' or 'man-caused disasters' -- they did not hold back from implying that conservative Americans are the enemies. They even go as far as to say that returning war vets are at risk for right-wing indoctrination, recruitment and radicalization. Right wing extremists are said to be using the economic downturn and the recent election of a black president (who happens to have half white) to recruit members. People who are pro-life, anti-illegal immigration, anti-big government, believe in the 2nd Amendment and etc, could be considered a right-wing extremist and a radical. In addition to classifying that granny standing outside Planned Parenthood with a pro-life sign an extremist, DHS and its state and local partners will be making an ongoing effort to keep tabs on YOU, the conservative. Because according to the report, conservative = hater.

By the way, where's that DHS report on ACORN?

It's on!

Where will you party today?

Backlash from the libs

Bill Press was just on Fox denouncing the tea parties... 750 of which are scheduled to go on around the country. He said he "smells a rat" and that these protests are paid for by the Republicans (what??) and that they are all politically-driven. Obviously, Mr. Press is very out of touch with the American people and what's going on in this country.

Quote of the Day

“Think what you do when you run into debt; you give to another power over your liberty.”-- Benjamin Franklin

Getting to know the SEIU

According to their web site (http://www.seiu.org), the Service Employees International Union is the largest and fastest growing union in North America. It currently has 2 million members in the U.S., Canada, and Puerto Rico who work in 3 service industry divisions -- health care, public services and property services.

SEIU's PAC (Political Action Committee), the SEIU Committee on Political Education gave $13.53 million to Barack Obama during his campaign, and another $3.16 million to oppose John McCain. While money collected from union dues cannot be donated to political campaigns. SEIU, like many other unions, encourages members to donate to its PAC, which is free to use that money for political purposes. (Read the whole article here)

From CNN,

The SEIU donated $85 million(!!) to Democratic campaign war chests for last year's elections, and its 2 million members put in countless hours of volunteer time on the campaign trail.

So in-te-res-tinng... Also interesting is that some of the anti-AIG protesters we saw over the last week were made up of SEIU workers. Read about it here, here and oh, if you really want the juice, read this... the headline is "SEIU President Andy Stern to Speak & Deliver 'Reality Check' at AIG Building in DC".

And while the Stern is waggling his finger at bailed out banks and executive bonuses, the SEIU isn't exactly squeaky clean either. Great article on it from the American Thinker.

The question on my mind is, did he know that Washington knew about those AIG bonuses? I mean, was it all pretend? More smoke and mirrors?

Card Check

... also known as 'The Employee Free Choice Act". Maybe it should be renamed 'The Employee NO CHOICE Act"? Big labor unions like the AFL-CIO, SEIU, and the Change to Win Coalition spent a lot of the money during the 2009 election, and are pushing Congress to approve this law because union membership has been declining. This law is a bad idea. Here's why (from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce):

1) It eliminates private ballots
Under the existing law today, workers have a chance to vote for or against unionization in a private-ballot election that is federally supervised. Under Card Check, if more than 50% of workers at a facility sign a card, the government would have to certify the union, and a private ballot election would be prohibited--even if workers want one.

By forcing workers to sign a card in public--instead of vote in private--Card Check opens the door to intimidation and coercion. Over 70% of voters agree that a private election is better than card check."

2) Card Check could put govt. regulators in charge of private business decisions

Once a union is certified, the business and union would only have 120 days to reach agreement, before facing the prospect of being forced into binding arbitration. This means a panel of government arbitrators who may have no understanding of the business could impose a two year contract deciding all workplace terms--without any vote by the company or its employees.

By placing government regulators in charge of a two-year decision, business flexibility is limited--at a time in our history when it is needed most. A recent poll found that 75% of voters believe government arbitrators should not decide the conditions of a union contract.

3) Harsh new penalties for businesses
Card Check would impose harsh new penalties on businesses--but not on unions--for violations during the union recognition process. This is unfair, and potentially disastrous for small or medium businesses, who are not familiar with unionizing campaigns or the National Labor Relations Act. If Card Check passes, many of these businesses would be facing unionization for the first time.

It looks like our current govt. is looking to grow bigger and badder every minute, and tightening that noose around our necks slowly but surely if we let them.

(source: http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm)

The Red Finch web site is up! There is still a lot of tweaking and fine tuning but it's up. People can now download designed slogans for free, to print on their t-shirts. More slogans will be added but since I am a mother of two kids under two (years of age), well, I'm just doing the best I can.

The President's press conference was on tv last night when I was uploading the web site. I was hoping he wouldn't blame the previous administration (again) but he did. Again. Another thing that I took away from the press conference was how he seem to really want to stick it to the rich folks. Oh, and did anyone notice how annoyed he was when asked about AIG?

I miss American Idol. The press conference just left my mouth feeling dry.

The Red Finch

I haven't blogged in a while. I've been busy working on the new web site. I can't wait till I'm done. I am too much of a tweaker. Will I ever be done tweaking??

Obama to reverse embryonic stem cell ban

Again, the stem cell "ban". There is no friggin' "ban". While I am glad that CNN did report that Bush's policy limited federal dollars to embryonic stem cell research, I wish they had chosen not to use the confusing headline. There are enough of the confused out there already.

The article also says that the administration is "planning a Monday event at the White House in which Obama will overturn the executive order signed by President George W. Bush in August 2001".

And another thing I noticed. Here's the top story under the 'Don't Miss' section: "Man appears free of HIV after stem cell transplant". The story repeatedly uses the word 'donor' but doesn't actually say that the patient was treated with adult stem cells.

Ignorance is spreading like a disease. Thanks, CNN.

Obama blows his own horn...

... and out comes a flat note.

From CNN: "Obama Touts Job Creation From Stimulus Plan".

(**in case you've forgotten, that's the $787 BILLION (!) Stimulus Plan**)

"The graduating cadets were informed at the end of January that they would be laid off because of a shortfall in the city's budget, Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman said.

A few weeks later, however, the city was given a $1.25 million stimulus grant through the Justice Department, which would provide funding for the cadets' jobs through the end of 2009. The cadets' future is uncertain beyond that point."

Wait a minute, wait a minute.

I don't mean to see the glass as half full, but with unemployment currently at 8.1% (a 25-year high) and the Dow at 6,626.94, you've saved twenty five jobs. Federal jobs. Until the end of the year.

Big whoop, Mr. President.

Unions, contributions and Democrats

There's a nice piece by Alyssa Rosenberg on 'unions mobilizing on behalf of Democratic candidates'. Here are some highlights.

NATCA (National Air Traffic Controllers Association), one of the smallest federal union, contributed $1.9 million to congressional candidates. 79% of that money (over $1.5 million) went to Democrats. $500,000 was also spent to support AFL-CIO's Working America program to build support and alliances with non-union workers, and $150,000 to help the Democratic National Committee's convention planning activities

PASS (Professional Aviation Safety Specialists) which represents Federal Aviation Administration and Defense Department technicians, made $207,500 in campaign contributions, with 91% going to Democrats

IFPTE (International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers), which represents Defense workers, made $30,500 in contributions as of Oct. 19, sending 93% of that money to Democrats

AFGE (American Federation of Government Employees) donated $592,050 as of Oct. 19, with 96% going to Democrats

NTEU (National Treasury Employee Unions), which also represents TSA workers, made $306,100 in contributions as of Oct 19, sending 95% to Democrats

In addition to the donations and through the AFL-CIO's coordinated efforts, union members have also volunteered on campaigns -- such as making telephone calls, walking door-to-door and other various on-the-ground efforts to reach voters.

This just in!

V.P. Biden and Labor Secretary Solis are having a secret meeting with the bosses of the AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations), the largest federation of unions in the United States. The purpose of the meeting is to push a bill that would "give workers the option of unionizing by getting a majority of the workers to sign cards or a petition instead of holding secret ballot elections."

Did you get the last part? They are now trying to squash the rights to a secret ballot. Isn't this bill a violation of rights?

And, no press allowed! So much for transparency.

Bush. Enemy of the Environment

Do you know of someone still pissed at Bush for not signing the Kyoto Treaty? Why didn't he sign the dang thing? Why does he hate the environment? Why? Why?? Of course, as with anything, there is another side to the story. One that mainstream media conveniently and efficiently swept under the rug. You know, because it didn't further their agenda.

Signing the treaty would have meant Very Bad Things for our economy. Here's why.

1) Energy prices would go up - gas prices 30% and electric 50-80%. You want to pay more for... everything?

2) Decrease in productivity (anywhere from $100 billion to $400 billion), because the treaty mandated that we cut back on our output. This in turn would lead to people losing their jobs or seeing their wages shrink. By 2020, our manufacturers would have to curb production by up to 15%, affecting our competitiveness

3) The treaty excluded developing nations even though their carbon emissions would exceed ours by 2020

4) A study conducted by NASA also stated that carbon dioxide emissions may not be the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases, yet it is still the focus of the treaty groups (I wonder why??)

5) According to the U.N., countries who signed the Kyoto treaty, namely Austria, New Zealand and Canada have in fact increased their emissions by 14, 23 and 54% respectively

And, contrary to what many of you may be hearing, we actually have a pretty darn good environmental record. From an article from Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D,

"The U.S. government estimates that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions increased by just 1.6 percent in 2007, after dropping 1.5 percent the year before. The growth in our emissions is less than the growth of our Gross Domestic Product, meaning we've improved the economy while reducing the growth in our emissions."

Also, according to The Heritage Foundation,

"... no EU nation has ratified the treaty, and none are close to ratifying it, despite predictions by experts that carbon dioxide emissions in Europe will be up to 14 percent above 1990 levels by 2010"

So be prepared to tell those leftist dunderheads out there that there were reasons why Bush didn't sign the dang treaty. And that he was doing it to protect the interests of our country. And be prepared to hear, "Well, we looked bad not signing it...".

Rush and Rules No. 5 and 12

• Rule #5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon
• Rule #12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it

Sounds like Obama and his Cons are doing just that to Rush Limbaugh.

By the way, those were two of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals. Who is Alinksy? Oh, no one... just the left-wing radical who taught 'paid organizers' to "rub raw the sores of the discontent". Just someone who did not believe in morals or God. Just someone whose objective was to bring people to the realization that they are miserable and that misery is someone else's fault and that they band together to demand what they deserve.

Interestingly enough, these tactics are called "community organizing".

But back to the Rules. Alinsky's playbook for radicals continue to serve Conbama well!

Just eat it!

Quickly now, before people realize it's yet another spending bill!

Yea, I'm talking about the FOUR HUNDRED AND TEN BILLION DOLLAR omnibus bill. Did I mention it also has EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED earmarks in it?

If memory serves me right (and I know it does), I remember Obama campaigning against earmarks. And please, it's time to stop blaming Bush. The people in the new administration who are still blaming Bush continue to prove that they lack class (as well as a whole lot of other things, but that's for another post).

Obama-Conbama.

Oh no, my darling Nancy

Is it me, or did Nancy Pelosi get more Botox?

On stem cell research

Bush created such an uproar in 2001 when he banned stem cell research. Many abhor the stance he took about God guiding his decision-making and then translating that stance into slowing down stem cell research. It didn't help that mainstream media concentrated on presenting only half of the story.

There are two types of stem cell research, embryonic/fetal and adult. In 2001, when Bush initiated the so-called ban, it wasn't really a ban at all. It was actually more about government limiting its funding to embryonic stem cell research within the U.S. Also, more progress has been made using adult stem cells in treatment. Two women, who had suffered spinal cord injuries due to an accident, walked into a press conference after having had treatment utilizing adult stem cells from their own olfactory tissue. We are currently treating over 58 different types of diseases using adult stem cell research, including Parkinson's and juvenile diabetes.

Apart from the obvious ethical issues regarding fetal stem cell research (obtaining embryonic stem cells destroys the embryos), there are big safety concerns as well. Fetal stem cell therapy has been producing less than desired results. A boy, now 17, treated with fetal stem cells in 2001, developed tumors in his brain and spine (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000029&ct=1).

The lack of funding from the private sector is also a clear indicator that it is not worth capitalizing on, because hard data does not back the imminent cure touted by fetal stem cell supporters.

So, should your tax dollars still be spent on fetal stem cell research? Thanks to activists still touting the benefits of fetal stem cell research, the state of California, which is bankrupt as we speak, has even borrowed 3 billion dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research.

To read more, go here and here.

Thought of the day

Why do libs (including Hollywood's celebutards) always have a 'Blame America first' attitude?

The Media Elite study

It amazes me how many people out there (mostly the libs) actually think that mainstream media is unbiased. And to irk them even more, tell them that mainstream media is biased to the left.

From the Media Research Center (www.mediaresearch.org):

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the “media elite” were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article “Media and Business Elites.” The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. This study, which was more elaborately presented in Lichter and Rothman’s subsequent book, The Media Elite, became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s and remains a landmark today.

KEY FINDINGS:

• 81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.

• In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).

• In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.

• In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.

• In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.

• Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media elite’s vote.

• Lichter and Rothman’s survey of journalists discovered that “Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum.”

• “Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right — a margin of seven-to-one.

White House Reporters

In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, Cox, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book Feeding the Beast: The White House vs. the Press. Walsh found that his colleagues strongly preferred Democrats, with the White House press corps admitting a total of 50 votes for Democratic candidates compared to just seven for Republicans.

KEY FINDINGS:

• In 1992, nine of the White House correspondents surveyed voted for Democrat Bill Clinton, two for Republican George H. W. Bush, and one for independent Ross Perot.

• In 1988, 12 voted for Democrat Michael Dukakis, one for Bush.

• In 1984, 10 voted for Democrat Walter Mondale, zero for Ronald Reagan.

• In 1980, eight voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter, four for liberal independent John Anderson, and two voted for Ronald Reagan.

• In 1976, 11 voted for Carter, two for Republican Gerald Ford.

• Walsh wrote of the White House press corps members he surveyed: “Even though the survey was anonymous, many journalists declined to reveal their party affiliations, whom they voted for in recent presidential elections, and other data they regarded as too personal — even though they regularly pressure Presidents and other officials to make such disclosures.”

• “Those who did reply seemed to be representative of the larger group. Seven said they were Democrats, eleven were unaffiliated with either major party, and not a single respondent said he or she was a registered Republican (although some might have been but were not willing to say so).”

There is much more in the study. To look at it, click here.

Word of the day: 'Demagogue'

From Merriam-Webster, a 'Demagogue' is "a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power" and/or "a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times".

Wikipedia has a more in-depth look into the word 'Demagogy'.

"Demagogy refers to a political strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, emotions, fears and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalist or populist themes."

Take your money and run!

... but where are you going to go?

Democrats are all about throwing more money at a problem.

"Clubbing the taxpayer like a seal...".

School spending

Much has been made about how we need to spend more on our public schools. In their 2005 report, Public Education Finances states that in New York City, the largest school district in the country, per pupil spending was $13,755. That's thirteen thousand seven hundred and fifty five dollars per student!

These school systems received $488.5 billion in 2005, up from $462.7 billion the previous year. Of the total, 47 percent came from state governments, 43.9 percent from local sources and 9.1 percent from the federal government. (U.S. Census Bureau)

In contrast, the average per pupil cost in our Catholic schools is $5,500 (with the average tuition of $3,500).

The graduation rates for students in NYC public schools is pretty dismal at 45.2% - fifth lowest among the 50 largest districts in the country whereas graduation rates for a Catholic school is roughly double.

On salaries. Salaries for New York City public school teachers range up to $70,000. Elementary school teachers in Catholic schools make a maximum of roughly $37,000; high school teachers max out around the low end of $40,000+.

Is the answer really to throw more money into our public school systems?

Question: Why do you never see thousands of Conservatives protesting?

Answer: Because they are too busy working, man...

That said, I am SO HAPPY to see Tea Parties happening about the country! Hooray to the organizers and hooray to those who attended. Stand up to keeping your hard-earned money!

When Cindy Sheehan held her one-woman protests, it was splashed all over the news.

Where-o-where are the mainstream media now? Why aren't they covering the Tea Parties?

I guess they're just not interested in those who view the StealFromUs Bill as a disaster.

Norman Thomas (1884—1968) said...

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

When I sent that to a friend, he said I was paranoid and that there's no way the American people would be fooled.

Two days later, on a shopping trip for milk and eggs, I came across this.



Paranoid, huh?

How about helping *me* over here?

I don't like welfare.

Because welfare, rewards the lazy and punishes those who work hard. Welfare is addictive. It is a drug. When you give someone welfare you become an enabler (anyone watch Dr. Phil?).

People with self-respect on welfare will try to get back on their own two feet again. People with a twisted sense of self-entitlement won't.

Welfare. A juicy incentive to stay lazy.

The Clinton Surplus

So we've all heard about Bush coming into office with a surplus. Then one day, I heard Ann Coulter say that the surplus was "only on paper". Ooh, how interesting. I must look into that. This is what I found.

For the whole explanation, please read Craig Steiner's article here.

If you are lazy and want to get to the meat quickly, just like I do, here's the quick version.

National debt = Public debt + Intergovernmental holdings.

Public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government.

Intergovernmental holdings is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

The following table shows national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years:



"While public debt went down, intergovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount and, in turn, the total national debt (public debt + intergovernmental holdings) went up. So there lies the misconception and false claim. Clinton paid down the public debt (notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years). But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intergovernmental holdings. How nice! Politicians stealing from social security.

To quote Rose, it's like taking money from your kid's piggybank to put in his college fund and calling it "savings".

Dead mouse

There is a dead mouse in the wall again. I can smell it. The last time this happened we had to close up that section of the house in an (fruitless) effort to contain the pong. It was a hot summer.
Thankfully, it's winter. It still stinks, but it stinks less.

Since we're on the subject on things that stink, here's another. Vogue and Vanity Fair. I'm letting my subscription to both magazines expire. Their glaring preferential treatment of one particular Presidential candidate (and his inner circle) over the other was disgusting. Am I the only one who noticed?

No. And we need those who did to write back to the editors.