Deadliest month in Middle East, still no decision by President

With the recent deaths in Afghanistan, this month is the deadliest since the war in the Middle East started in 2002. And the deadliest since...well...August.

What do these months have in common? Simple - both months went without the reinforcements requested by the commanders in the field. Reinforcements requested formally in July and repeatedly requested in briefings since May.

Ummm, didn't Candidate Obama say that he, unlike his predecessor, would LISTEN to his commanders in the field? Didn't he say that he would do what it takes to complete the operation in Afghanistan?

Looks like Bush and Obama have more in common than they like to admit. They both dragged out this war without defined objectives and without giving their commanders what they need to get the job done. And they have both stood idly by as men and women of our armed forces die almost daily.

Get it done or get out. I don't care what your party is. Get it done or get out.

H1N1/Swine Flu: NOT a Pandemic or National Emergency

President Obama just declared H1H1 (Swine Flu) to be a "national emergency".

Why would he think that? And why would we believe that he actually does think that?

In the past year, about 1,000 people have died of H1N1 flu. In the typical year, 36,000 people die of the seasonal flu. Is H1N1 really that bad?

The President and the CDC are pushing that all children need to get the H1N1 inoculation shot. But the President has not had his own kids given the shot he is telling everyone else they need to get.

Does the President really think H1N1 is that bad? Or is he a hypocrite for not doing as he tells everyone else? Or is something else going on?

Remember, his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, said: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." That's why this administration has been nothing but crisis after crisis after crisis. Healthcare crisis, banking crisis, auto crisis, climate crisis, energy crisis, housing crisis, spectrum crisis... Is this one any different? Is it a play for more power, more control?

Pay Czar: Pay caps - not only for bailed-out companies

You hear about the pay caps for any company that tool any bailout money? You know, taking away the LEGALLY-CONTRACTED and APPROVED BY CONGRESS bonuses for executives who decided to accept a bonus INSTEAD of salary? The bonus they EARNED by MEETING the goals set by Congress? And that if they had not met the goals, they would have only made one penny for the whole year of work?

Well, they met the goals. They earned the bonuses. And the "Pay Czar" is now wanting to take the bonuses away anyway.

But wait - there's more!

These caps don't only apply to the banks that took bailout money. They can apply to all banks, whether or not they were bailed out.

But wait - there's more!

These caps can apply to ANY COMPANY that is deemed to affect the stability of the country. You know, like Walmart or GE?

"And if you act now -"

These caps DO NOT apply to everyone equally. The Pay Czar can choose who to limit and who to not limit.

On the one hand, Walmart has often been criticized by members of Congress and the administration. Some suggest these criticisms are targeted at them largely because they have repeatedly rejected unionization, and the President is - admitted repeatedly - very closely aligned with the largest union, SEIU. You know, the group that causes unrest at healthcare town hall meetings? And tries to make it look like it's the people against the healthcare plan causing the problems? Even while SEIU members are biting people's fingers off? Yea, those people. The President is VERY closely associated with them, and has said - repeatedly - that he consults with them on everything.

On the other hand, GE is closely associated with the Presidential administration, and several top executives have been appointed to plush positions. Guess whose pay is NOT getting capped?

President Obama: Act of Treason?

President Obama is planning to sign a UN global warming treaty.

The problem is, under the US Constitution, the President does not have authority to sign any treaties until first ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. And with the current members of the Senate, such a treaty will never get anywhere close to a 67/23 vote. Or, not in favor of it anyway. The Senate recognizes that their constituents are so firmly against such a thing that they will never approve it, and even if ALL the Democrats did vote for it (which they won't; the "blue dog" Democrats won't vote for it), there are enough Republicans (even after discounting the RINOs ["Republican In Name Only]) to ensure any such UN treaty to ensure a firm rejection.

Without this authority, the President is undermining the government and meeting the very definition of treason.

Anita Dunn, Pres. Obama's "Fox Watchdog" Admires Mao Tse-Tung

Anita Dunn, appointed by President Obama to keep an eye on Fox News, gave a speech before a high school group in June.

In that speech, she said - and gave examples - of how much she admires Mao Tse-Tung. She said that he is one of her "favorite political philosophers." She has two favorites, and he is one.

Mao Tse-Tung took over China by killing anyone opposed to him. He killed 70 million of his own people, and put many more in "re-education" camps and slavery. he said that he would be willing to kill 300 million of his own people to get his victory.

Mao Tse-Tung killed more of his own people than Hitler did, 4 to 7 times as many, in fact. Hitler only had 6 million Jews killed, and 11-17 million total killed.

And this man is her "favorite philosopher"?!?

Doubt my text here? Click the link in the title to see it in her own words.

Perfect example of Liberalism

We have just been handed a perfect example of one side of Liberalism.

That side? Liberalism considered talk to be the same as action.

President Obama has just been given the Nobel Peace Prize. It was given to him for giving "hope for a better future", including reducing nuclear arms and talking with Iran about peace.

But Obama has only TALKED about reducing nuclear arms (which will not actually improve peace, since the radical nations will not give up theirs, but that's another matter), and he has TALKED about meeting with Iran. He has not actually done EITHER. Other Presidents have DONE both; Obama has TALKED about doing both.

Cross in the Mohave Desert

There is currently a political conflict concerning a cross that is standing in the Mohave desert.

Background: In 1934, a group of veterans erected a cross in the desert as a memorial to those who died in the Great War (now known as World War I). In 1994, this land was made into a national preserve, hence it is now "federal land".

A man, supported by the ACLU (naturally) has filed a suit to have the cross removed, claiming that the cross violates the separation of church and state.

There are several problems here. First, any suit requires that the plaintiff have "standing", that is, he must be personally involved in the case. Unless he was personally harmed ("damaged"), he has no ground to file a suit. But he is claiming that he was offended by the cross, which is argued to give him standing in the case.

Second, the Constitution doesn't require a "separation of church and state". It requires that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". That means that Congress should not make any law that concerns any religious organization. Yea, right. They have made lots of law concerning religious groups. But the Constitution says they are not supposed to. As far as Congress is concerned, religious groups do not even exist. That means no laws for them, and no laws against them.

Third: "Congress". The cross was erected by a group of veterans, not the Congress, so the amendment does not apply. Actually, states can (short of more recent court decisions) establish their own religions, and many did so, though they have since been discontinued. Only Congress is restricted by this amendment.

Fourth: "establishment of religion". This is a cross, not an organization, so the amendment does not apply. Which technically means that Congress would be free to make laws concerning this cross if they wanted to, just not restrictions (see the next point). I'm sure the ACLU would like a law that any cross must be lit 24/7 at government expense, unless requested otherwise by the cross's owner...

Fifth: The amendment doesn't stop with forbidding laws concerning establishments of religion. It goes on: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means that even if a law does not directly concern a religious group, it cannot restrict them. That means that Congress cannot make any law that would restrict this cross in any way. Of course, the lawsuit is handled by the courts, not Congress, so that doesn't apply either.

We see then, that IF this guy is deemed to even have standing to file a suit, the only results would be that he could seek damages for the offense. But he has no monetary claim, since nothing was damaged. He could seek some psychiatric opinion that he has suffered, but he would still have to determine some monetary loss for damages to be awarded - lost productivity or such. Awards for "pain and suffering" generally require gross negligence or some other fault on the part of the defendant.

So, even if this guy won his case, he still gets nothing. Other than maybe an injunction. Yea, issue the cross a restraining order so it can't stalk the guy. If the guy is "harmed" after knowing the "danger", then it's his own fault. You can't sue a stove manufacturer after you've been warned not to put your hand on the burner.

Remember, this cross is only eight-feet-tall, and it's in the middle of the desert. It's not like he's likely to see it on his way to work or anything. But even then, it's freedom. If this guy doesn't like freedom, he can use some of his freedom to move somewhere else.

Chicago Olympics

At the end of Round One:

Chicago, with the fewest votes for the 2016 Olympic Games...
You are the Weakest Link. Goodbye!

Good news!

We've just gotten two bits of good news!

1 - Chicago has been eliminated from consideration for the 2016 Olympics. YAY!

We don't want the second most politically-corrupt city (after New Orleans) getting it.


2 - President Obama met with General Stanley McChrystal briefly before leaving Copenhagen. YAY!

Despite last month being the deadliest in the middle east since we went there in 2002,
and despite Obama's loud insistence as a candidate that we need to listen to the commanders on the ground,
he has only met with his commander in Afghanistan (whom he appointed) ONCE in the past 70 days.
OK, now they have met twice.

Now Obama needs to approve the troops that McChrystal says we have to have to avoid losing the war...