ACORN Housing loses funding, good day for American taxpayers!

ACORN has been under significant pressure from two heroes literally risking their life to expose ACORN and the criminal enterprise they have built on Alinsky’s principles. For every liberty loving and red blooded American, ACORN represents everything that is wrong with this country. Most of us have discovered this awful organization accidentally during Obama’s campaign. We learned slowly about ACORN’s involvement with the Community Reinvestment Act and it’s mafia-style tactics they used to intimidate bankers. We learned that Obama represented ACORN during a lawsuit in Chicago, where ACORN alleged that banks practice discriminatory lending practices. Although Obama’s involvement was minimal his roots as a community organizer and presence in this case suggests that he is partial with their views. Lastly, we discovered the following video of community organizers and Obama pledging his support and acceptance of ACORN’s agenda. Then we learned that ACORN was knee deep in voter registration fraud and are now being investigated in numerous states.

We took a heart breaking setback during the discussion of the 787 Stimulus package, when a Republican discovered 4.1 Billion allocated towards ACORN (and similar groups) of hard earned taxpayer money. He proposed an amendment, but was struck down 51-45 despite every Republican voting NAY. Democrats made it quite clear to whom their allegiance belonged to and Americans were not on that list.

However the tide is beginning to turn. Last week we learned that two brave and courageous film makers went undercover and exposed ACORN for the criminal thugs they truly are. A third video shows ACORN’s employees providing advice and encouraging our undercover heroes to commit tax fraud. Despite the film makers open admittance of being involved in prostitution, sex smuggling, under age sex slavery and opening a brothel! Last week the women caught on the first two videos were fired, but ACORN lost their U.S. census project a major setback for the thriving criminal enterprise.

Fast forward to today! Republicans emboldened by the recent ACORN scandal have proposed an amendment to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) proposed the amendment to specifically strip ACORN of housing funding and I am glad to inform you that the amendment passed 83-7. This is fantastic news and comes with an added bonus of exposing turncoat Democrats best described as enemies of the state violating their core duty, protecting and upholding our Constitution.

Burris (D-IL)
Casey (D-PA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Gillibrand (D-NY) (The so called blue dog)
Leahy (D-VT)
Sanders (I-VT)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

They voted against funding ACORN despite Johann’s statement:

“ACORN has received $53 million in taxpayer funds since 1994 and that the group was eligible for a wider set of funding in the pending legislation, which funds housing and transportation programs. “

This of course still leaves the following questions.

1) Is ACORN still eligible for the stimulus money that Democrats deliberately voted to keep in.
2) Is ACORN Housing being funded via any other channels?

3) Are there plans to defund the parent organization?

The following has to be done as soon as possible.

1) Halt remainder of all funding to the criminal organization known as ACORN and it’s numerous affiliates.
2) Pass legislation to return all of taxpayer money back to the US Treasury.
3) Launch RICO investigations for racketeering charges.
4) Label ACORN as an organized crime enterprise, arrest top officials and dismantle the organization

Any Congressman or Senator that wishes to oppose should be paraded around the Internet and removed from office at the next election. Keep in mind that ACORN has threatened to sue James O’Keefe/Hannah Giles and FOX News for smearing them, naturally because these stories are not being covered by any other news network. As of now I applaud James for slowly distributing these videos, one per day. By doing this he is putting ACORN on the forefront and via Fox News and the Internet, Americans will learn the true sinister nature of this organization. I hope more videos are coming and would be shocked if we do not see several more within the next few days.

Who is the actual liar, Obama or Joe Wilson?

Joe Wilson may have erred and is the source of condemnation of his party, but virtually nobody is discussing Obama’s bitterly partisan speech or his ideas – no, Joe Wilson is the topic of conversation. Job well done, whether intentional or not. However a divide between the left and right continues to rage and now the nitty-gritty regarding illegal immigrant coverage is on the forefront. So, who is the actual liar?

First of all, we need to figure out just how many illegal immigrants are in this country. This number varies drastically depending on source, here are just some examples:

Center for Immigration Studies: 6 million
New York Times: 11-12 million
Department of Homeland Security: 11.5 million
American Resistance: 15-20 million

Let us also assume that tracking people without any documentation or formal entry is very difficult and estimating these numbers is hardly an exact science. Let us however assume that the number is closer to 12 million because that was the number cited during amnesty discussions last year and is roughly the number that Obama omitted in yesterday’s speech by suddenly citing “30 million uninsured” instead of the usual 46.

According to the now infamous politifact, a source I have long stopped trusting claim the following:

Most illegal immigrants are also now excluded from Medicaid, the
government-run health care for the poor. We didn’t see anything that would change that.

One place where the bill does mention immigration status is for
“affordability credits.” These are tax credits for people of modest means need to buy health insurance. The credits would help them buy insurance on a national health insurance exchange. The bill specifically says that people in the United States illegally are not eligible for tax credits, on page 132, section 242.

Ultimately concluding that Joe Wilson is the liar, not their hero Obama. However the center for immigration studies disagrees with this finding offering two very clashing facts.

1. “On July 16, an amendment by Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) that would have required use of the SAVE program to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving the affordable premium credits was defeated by the House Ways and Means Committee.” If Democrats were truly interested in banning illegals from taxpayer funded health coverage, why would they possible strike down this amendment!?

2. Regarding these very same tax credits. “Section 246 of HR 3200 states, “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”2 But as CRS points out, “HR 3200 does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens — whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently — participating in the Exchange.”

Regarding Medicaid/Medicare, Congress (specifically democrats) have purposely voted against stringent restrictions for verification of legality.

In conclusion, the ICS states the following (they are also assuming 6 million illegals) :

“This report estimates the size of the illegal population without health insurance and incomes low enough to qualify for the health insurance affordability credits contained in The America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (HR 3200). Although the bill states illegal immigrants are not to benefit from the new affordability credits, this prohibition is without an enforcement mechanism. Congress voted down an amendment in committee that would have required the use of the SAVE program. Almost all other means-tested programs of the kind found in HR 3200 require the use of SAVE. As it now stands, the bill has a ban on illegal immigrants, but Congress has chosen to leave that ban unenforced. As a result, the nearly seven million uninsured illegal immigrants with qualifying incomes could receive affordability credits under the bill, creating billions of dollars in costs to taxpayers. If the final version of health care reform includes a public option plan and if illegal immigrants enroll in that program instead of receiving affordability credits, the costs would be less for taxpayers. Nonetheless, if the government became the direct insurer of illegal immigrants, the cost of covering them would still run into the billions of dollars.”

Obama spent 48 minutes lying to America and apparently he was very successful.

Green job czar Van Jones polluting Obama’s administration. Update: Buh-bye!

Obama administration is finding itself in a most unpleasant situation and the results are going to be devastating. You may be aware that Obama has garnered interest from many left of center individuals with his appointment of numerous czars. Beyond czars being unconstitutional as they bypass Senate confirmation hearings, these czars have a more radical past than Obama himself and that should tell you something. Move out Jeremiah Wright, out of the way Bill Ayers, here comes Van Jones.

We first learned about Van Jones from Glenn Beck the popular conservative host on Fox News. Incidentally the discovery of Van Jones is accidental and most of the blame can go on the Obama administration, something I am sure they are now regretting. It all began after Beck accused Obama of being a racist, after Obama accused Cambridge police of acting “stupidly” involving an incident with his friend and professor, Robert Gates Jr. Shortly after, Beck found himself under the attack by a group called Color of Change – a very subtle non race baiting name with a dubious mission statement of “strengthen Black America’s political voice” – and noticed his advertisers pulling out. He dug deeper and discovered that CoC was co-founded by Van Jones and someone he recognized as one of the Green Job Czars. Thinking there could be a deeper connection, Beck fully explored Van Jones’ past and stumbled upon a radical powder keg!

Van Jones at one time or another was :

• Black Nationalist
• Anarchist
• Communist
• Imprisoned

According to NewsBusters Van Jones is using his past and radicalized agenda to push an agenda harnessing his new powerful government position:

I think it’s pretty instructive what his past is…it’s the same sort of philosophy, the idea that government ought to be reordering society in accordance with some utopian vision that failed with communism and socialism, and will fail with this green jobs idea.

If you think this all sounds scary and wondering how someone like this could have possibly, ever, in a million years ended up in a position to set policy, use taxpayer money and wield tremendous power then unfortunately it gets worse.

Last week, a video emerged of Van Jones in a Berkeley, calling Republicans assholes, because that was the best explanation he could muster as to how Republicans continued to push legislation despite their dwindling numbers. Watch the entire video, there is a very amusing moment when a brave Berkeley student suggests that some of Van Jones’ policies sound an awful lot like Marxist propaganda, gee, really? After the uproarious laughter died down, he finally countered the question by asking “how is that capitalism working out for you?”. Nice. Granted he was not employed by the “American people” just yet, but because this took place one month before we can probably assume that he already discussed this with Obama. Van Jones issued a public analogy as the “Republicans are assholes” comment went viral and brought the Communist into the public spotlight.

This is where it got really ugly.

A well known blogger and a site I visit regularly, Gateway Pundit, somehow managed to discover Van Jones was at one point (or still is) a ‘9/11 Truther’ suggesting that he believes our government was involved in the worst terrorist attack on this nation’s history. As this story was gaining steam, the administration within hours released a statement suggesting that “Jones may have signed some petition in 2004, but it did not reflect his true opinion”. Too bad for Jones, Gateway Pundit found Jones’ signature on a 2002 petition! A big difference as this suggests a deep seated hate of the Bush administration and not a dissatisfaction with the 9/11 Commission. In conclusion, we have a deeply partisan conspiracy nut in one of the highest levels of government. Fantastic.

While many can shrug off his comment about Republicans, his involvement with the ‘Truthers’ will not and cannot be ignored. Worse still, it raises three very important questions.

1. Does Obama himself subscribe to the 9-11 conspiracy theories and is he a Truther himself?
2. If Obama is not Truther, what kind of scrutiny is applied to these czars and how can he justify employing Van Jones?
3. How many other Czars have an equally radical past?

America voted for a man whose past, friends, relationships and involvements were radicalized, dubious and scary. So what is more amusing? American voters reaping what they sow or the guy appointed to clean up America polluting it even further? You decide.

UPDATE: According to this video, Valerie Jarrett explains how Van Jones was scoped out by the Obama administration and that his participation, ideas and activism were the reason he was “recruited into the White House”. The idea of recruiting people into the White House is an anathema to our constitutional process and has to be stopped.

In case you are not convinced that Van Jones does not belong in our government, let alone speaking to anyone for that matter – a video of him comparing George Bush to a crackhead is now on YouTube.

UPDATE 2: The effort to expose the truth has culminated in what many pundits predicted, a resignation during the weekend of the Labor Day holiday. Traditionally a perfect weekend to sweep “controversial” news under the rug, 2009 proves to be no different. Van Jones quit this morning and in his parting words accused us of launching a smear campaign. I find it rather amusing how Jones’ own disgusting rhetoric, involvement with 9/11 Truthers, admitted communism and radicalism can be interpreted as a “smear campaign”, but if he was actually intelligent in the first place – I wouldn’t be writing about him. On to the next czar…

How is Obama doing in the polls? September 2009.

Rasmussen reports; Obama continues to drop in approval polling. According to the graph and the notion that a picture speaks a thousand words, Obama has to be concerned about the alarming rate his approval numbers are dropping. One has to wonder what is transpiring among the American voting public and how legitimate these numbers are.

Rasmussen is one of the most reliable pollsters in America because he constantly polls actual voters, a distinction worth making and an aspect that makes Rasmussen a leader in polling strategy. Voters, unlike ‘likely voters’ are the most knowledgeable and honest people to question, their sentiment although anecdotal can prove to be extremely useful in determining future trends. Therefore I am not dismissive of these numbers and neither should Obama be.

Why is this happening? First likely answer to this dramatic decline is the health care reform bill, raging town halls and grassroots awareness. People truly understand, throwing an entire system under the bus such that 15 million people can get insured is not a solution. Sure, we need reform, but our system is not so badly damaged as to merit a two trillion dollar overhaul resulting in higher costs and deteriorating physician care. Secondly, disturbing information regarding Obama’s czars is surfacing thanks in large part due to Glenn Beck. Czars in general rub people the wrong way because they circumvent our traditional process, but the amount of radicalism so many of these czars tend to share is disturbing. Combine that with a White House request for citizens to report and snitch on each other and you have the making of a president scaring the stars and stripes out of any conservative, moderate or independent voter.

What will Obama do? Just like Bill Clinton, Obama will have to swing to the center or continue to suffer in the polls. As his poll numbers drop the support for his legislation will become difficult to justify and Congress members will begin to distance themselves from Obama’s policies. If they cannot rely on a popular president then why should they be risking their political careers for legislation that may not only fail, but will cost them a future election.

In fact a most incredible irony might occur in 2010 when enough Democrats get thrown out of office. By inhereting a more balanced Congress, Obama might be able to negotiate upon legislation that satiates most Americans. Yes, he will abandon his extreme leftist agenda and will invariably disappoint the most hardcore contingent of the New Democrat party, but he will save his political career in the process. Americans clamoring for salvation in 2010 might get an unexpected surprise come 2012!

Cambridge Police on Obama’s mind?

Really? Truly this must be a mistake! With an economy in crisis and unemployment projected to worsen, does mentioning an incident in Cambridge, MA really solve any problems? Or does it instead escalate a story onto the national stage that should have been buried days ago, adding fuel to the fire of race relations.

After doing diligent investigation, Obama recited the story to the American public in the following fashion. “My understanding is that Professor Gates then shows his I.D. to show that this is his house and, at that point, he gets arrested for disorderly conduct, charges which are later dropped,.” finally adding “Police Acted ‘Stupidly’ in Gates Case”. How presidential, no?

According to the Boston Herald, Sargent Crowley – the officer involved in the arrest filed his official report and clearly stated that Professor Gates did NOT show his identification upon request. Refusal to show the ID immediately escalated the situation as officers suddenly had probable cause. However story does not stop there, as witnesses and the police officers further allege that the Professor berated and shouted at the police in ways that would result in the arrest of anyone, black, white or striped. To Obama’s second point, assuming that Gates was in the house already – who cares? If a burglar was trying to break in, then it’s probably very likely that he would be in the house already by the time police arrive. Duh?

According to the Herald’s poll, eight thousand people voted on the question of who is likely at fault and 45% voted that Professor Gates was out of line and only 8% felt the police were out of line. Even Boston residents figured out that this story is a joke and that Professor Gates purposely turned this non-event into a racial issue, even bringing in a pathetic windbag such as Al Sharpton into the picture.

My take on the story is that of an ego gone wild. Henry Gates is indeed a very accomplished individual, a scholar and someone who spent his entire life in academia. One could say that in certain circles, this man is probably very well known and respected. Most likely, Gates is well aware of his own significance and what he has accomplished as a “black” man (although he claims he is 56% white). When the police arrived and questioned him, demanding his ID, my guess is that his first instinct was frustration and anger that he was being asked for identification, thinking instead – “I am professor Henry Gates, why in the world do the Cambridge police not know me?!”. Unfortunately for him, it seems his thoughts spilled out and according to the Herald, Gates was heard shouting “‘I’m a Harvard professor . . . You believe white women over black men. This is racial profiling.’” Apparently Cambridge police have to be familiar with every Harvard professor. Upon realization that Gates is going to be treated like any other citizen, during an absolutely routine police call, he flipped out. After all, would a Harvard professor be that stupid as to forget his own keys and find himself breaking into his own house? Yes, he would be that stupid and he decided to take his anger out on the police instead.

Accusing Sgt. Crowley of racism is at this point just reaching for straws and now that the leader of the free world has found this story to be important, imagine for a second how many people across the country will turn everyday misunderstandings into national debates over race. Instead of telling an ego maniacal professor to shut the hell up and show the police some respect, Obama has instead encouraged, without fully understanding the details of the case, for every “victim” of race to stand up and shout as loudly as humanly possible.

As a side note, Sgt Crowley’s history shows a hero, NOT a racist. A man who performed mouth to mouth in an effort to save then Celtic star Reggie Lewis. Crowley said in an interview with the Herald “I wasn’t working on Reggie Lewis the basketball star. I wasn’t working on a black man. I was working on another human being”.

This is the man who supposedly acted stupidly. Nice going Obama.

Read official police report!

Obama’s popularity starting to wane?

We live in interesting times and the job of POTUS is probably the most difficult and stressful task in the world. This is of course why so much emphasis is placed on elections, campaigns and public involvement.

Obama rode in a wave of irrational popularity bolstered by the nation’s vehement dislike of George W. Bush, a souring economy and the attraction to a youthful black male. A great many of us in the political “right” and “center” were put off by Obama as we began to learn about his experience, stances and dubious past.

It appears, however, that some sense is starting to creep back into the American public although at a stubbornly slow rate. As of now, the most trusted pollster – Scott Rasmussen suggests that for the first time since Obama’s election the number of people who greatly disapprove of Obama’s performance outweigh those that greatly approve.

Total approval is still outweighing the total disapproval by 9%. I trust Rasmussen more than any other agency because of the significant effort he takes in polling actual voters as opposed to random Americans. Those that vote habitually are more educated and frankly more important in terms of gauging political sentiment.

Gallup, a source I trust much less and has a common history of over blowing their numbers suggest that Obama’s approval rating is at it’s lowest, 57-35.

What may be contributing to Obama’s slip in numbers and what does it mean for the nation?
Several factors are in play here in my opinion.

1. Stimulus: It appears that people are finally becoming aware that frivolous government spending does not promote a healthy economy. The stimulus bill was rushed through congress and jammed down the throat of the American people on the grounds that a crisis must be averted. It turns out that unemployment continued to climb and the amount of money spent out of the stimulus money is marginal.

2. Iran: Iran’s “revolution” is now headline news on all major agencies and the divide between Obama’s handling of the situation is growing. It does not matter what the man does, because it is a lose-lose situation for him. Due to his immature and silly campaign promises of maintaining dialog with dictators and murderers, he is left with two options. He either embraces the opposition in Iran thus breaking his campaign promise or he maintains his campaign promise and permanently alienates the revolting population of Iran.

3. North Korea: Americans are very concerned about foreign policy and Obama’s soft stance on foreign relations and continued reduction in advanced military equipment has emboldened our enemies. Recently North Korea’s sabre rattling has intensified dramatically and as of this moment a Korean ship is being tracked by our military for suspected arms smuggling.

4. National health care: Despite what Obama thinks and says, most Americans do not accept the idea of state run heath care. Worse still, he claims that the government will act as a competitor and NOT crowd the private industry – this is of course not true and cannot be realistic. As this awful policy gains more attention in the media, independents that voted for Obama will break away in droves.

As of now, Obama is still extremely popular, but as time progresses he will become the owner of the economic condition that his policies have created. Unlike FDR, Obama will not be able to pull the wool over people’s eyes in the age of communication and information overload, nor will his policies be directed to Republican strongholds to win over voting constituency a la New Deal. Instead, in the age of the Internet and the collective ADD that plagues the American public – the patience with this youthful new president will run out in record time.

In fact, the stock market will be the precursor to Obama’s popularity. As of now, we are at a critical inflection point and the 2nd sharpest rally in the equities market is about to end. Once the resumption of the bear market continues and the economic reality wipes away the delusional fog clears away – Obama’s popularity will sink.

Hopefully his waning popularity will put a stem on the extremely liberal agenda that is placing this country in back breaking debt and the flow of policies that may permanently change life in America.

Obama administration and the growing Czar problem

How many czars does it take to destroy a representative government?

Sounds like the start of a corny political joke, but this is a question every American should now be asking. Obama is now officially dancing with the czars, after appointing more czars into his administration than the entire history of the Russian empire. As of now the total list is as follows (although not all have been appointed by Obama).

This list is unverified: Drug Czar,U.S. Border Czar,Urban Czar,Regulatory Czar,Stimulus Accountability Czar ,Iran Czar,Middle East Czar,Afghanistan-Pakistan Czar ,Cyber Security Czar,Bank Bailout/TARP Czar,Energy Czar,Technology Czar,Copyright Czar,Climate Czar,Health Care Czar,WMD Czar,Education Czar,Economic Czar,Housing Czar,Mortgage Czar,Pay Czar,Guantanamo closure Czar,Terrorism Czar, more?

What makes czars dangerous? Let’s ask a senior Democrat and pork king himself, Senator Byrd, who wrote a letter to Mr. Obama regarding the very same question we are discussing right now. He wrote this letter 6 czars ago and one must conclude that Byrd’s complaints fell on deaf years, or perhaps a Letter czar?

The principal issue with czars is that they are appointed and report directly to the president. So, unlike all high profile positions (secretary of state, attorney general, supreme court justices, CIA directors, etc) czars do not undergo the scrutiny of the US Congress. Therefore people are appointed to high public office without adequate representation of the people. However unlike private advisors to the president, these czars wield enormous amount of power. Their salaries are private and even the reach of their jurisdiction is unclear. Therefore we have dramatically reduced transparency, a pledge Obama is violating and significan disruption in the balance of power, a feature of our unique government.

As of now we are transforming into more of a communist type of government than people can imagine. For example, consider the structure of the communist party. At the head reigns the General Secretary and under him are high ranking party members in charge of major government agencies (ministries), under whom exist more party functionaries. What transpires between the General Secretary and Ministry officials is anyone’s guess. Obama and his multitude of czars are creating this very same structure. In other words, what he is doing is NOT constitutional. Of course Obama did not introduce the concept of appointing czars, but he has gone czar crazy.

Consider for a moment, the pay czar. For every company currently receiving bailout money, this Pay Czar controls the wages and salaries of every executive within the company. If you take into account that plenty of private companies have been sucked into taking money against their will and only to survive for competitive reasons, the reach of government control has gone further than any American should be comfortable with. Not only is it the responsibility of the US Government to let private companies fail, but beyond violating that responsibility our government has gone faster towards nationalization. Further undermining the ability of companies to recover and function properly, thus prolonging the torture of being supported by taxpayer moneys.

As is stands, numerous individuals whose backgrounds cannot be verified are now extending control over the private lives of American citizens. One only wonders what the responsibilities of czars like the Cyber/Tech czar are and just how much power this individual wields.

A development such as this should be extremely distressing to anyone engaged in politics or the welfare of this nation.

Supreme court and White House refuses to lift ban on gays in military.

Today America’s highest court stood by a decision to maintain the ban on gays serving in the military, a decision that was supported and encouraged by the White House. There are several important issues at play and while I contend that this is an extremely sensitive topic, it is no less a topic that should be openly discussed with out the fear of infringing upon political correctness.

First of all, I fail to see how a ban on gay military service is at all constitutional. Whatever happened to individual liberty and freedom? I for one do not approve of the homosexual lifestyle, but this is my own personal conviction and not anything I would ever use to enact policy from. Homosexuality is something an individual is born with, discriminating against sexual orientation is akin to discriminating against skin color. Even if we were to assume that homosexuality is a choice, then under whose authority and under what right can we discriminate against that choice? I choose to be straight, what if based on my heterosexual choice I was banned from participating in certain establishments? I would sue and hopefully win. I find our stance on this issue disappointing and contradictory to the very essence of what makes America the greatest and most open country in the world.

Second of all, with our military stretched to it’s maximum capacity and soldiers suffering from exhaustion and stress, why are we purposely limiting the field of potentially excellent soldiers? If an individual applies to the army and passes boot camp with excellence, demonstrates physical and mental acuteness – then why is orientation a factor? Not only is this unconstitutional, but it’s downright idiotic. According to this article, some 13,000 soldiers have been discharged based on sexual orientation. That is a staggering number, in fact that is practically an entire division. If a general fighting a war, lost an entire division, he would retire in shame. Even if we were to account for the number of inevitable soldiers who cited homosexuality as a means to exit the army, I suspect the number of eligible and capable soldiers banned from service is staggering. One thing of note, I never served in the military, but I do respect the institution greatly. I submit that perhaps me not serving, excludes me from such commentary, but this should not prohibit me from making an observation of perceived unfairness.

Thirdly and far more important aspect of the story, is the Obama administration. A supposed champion of humanity, a hero among the gay community and an inspiration to progressives around the world – urged the Supreme Court to throw out the case. This action clearly demonstrates the work of a masterful politician, a politician willing to say and do anything to garner votes and then immediately back stab the very same constituency he was cajoling a mere one year ago. What is especially upsetting is the sheepish mentality of the gay community. During the campaign, homosexuals flocked and strongly supported Obama with a whopping 90% voting majority, the only other minority with a stronger slant were African-Americans, although I am sure race had nothing to do with that decision.

According to some proud homosexuals, voting for McCain was similar to ushering in the Spanish Inquisition whereby homosexuals would be publicly lynched and hung in town centers. This perverted and skewed perception of one political faction being the friend, while another faction being the sworn enemy has badly distorted and undermined the quality of our elections. We have elected a man who not only disregards capitalism, but apparently could care less about individual rights and freedoms. How many Jews voted for Obama thinking that he was going to be a friend to Israel? How many homosexuals voted for Obama thinking that he was going to fight for their rights? How many other minorities have been disappointed with a man who pays lip service to minorities for the sole purpose of obtaining their vote?

After Obama’s groveling in Cairo and his inexcusable involvement in this Supreme Court case, I would hope that minorities think twice before blindly voting for their party of choice. It goes without saying that gays in the military, abortion, marriage and other social hot buttons pale in comparison to the pertinent issues plaguing our life. When our country is suffering from the worst recession, job loss, debt and housing collapse in 40 years – one hopes that whether two men marry or at what stage a woman can abort a child, are not the kinds of issues used to decide the next president of this country.

Cheney versus Obama

I feel compelled to make frivolous commentary regarding the latest spat between former VP Dick Cheney and Mr. Obama. Current topic of conversation? War on terror, a topic that Obama has undoubtedly mastered and fully understood in his short time as the president of this great nation.

Positions?

Cheney maintains his unwavering stance that dealing with terrorism requires a strong and calculated approach, a recognition of who the enemy is and what they are capable of doing is constantly reiterated and never forgotten.

Obama maintains his wavering stance that America is built on certain principles and this “war on terror” is potentially violating these principles, furthermore that our political spectrum has it wrong and only a compromising approach can be a solution to avoid “man-made disasters”.

Who is winning?

Once again, I must apologize to the frivolous nature of this post because I fail to see this as even a battle worthy of commentary. Considering of course the participants involved. A man who has been in politics virtually all his life and has been exposed to top secret information for the past 8, a man with extremely strong convictions and principles. Versus, a man who has been in politics for about as long as Cheney has been vice president and briefed with top secret information for about 6 months – and has demonstrated no conviction, no stance and no position. A FDR third-wayer, a pure politician determined to appeal and be loved by all.

People do not like Cheney, he seems dark and sinister, cannot wipe that permanent scowl off his face and speaks in a condescending tone. But if you look past all the unpleasant physical trivialities you will hear words and wisdom that is becoming of a president, worthy of an individual that could hold the highest office in the nation. Yet instead we have a feel-good, pretty, jovial and gives-me-the-fuzzies man appealing to all our primitive human desires. Unfortunately when he opens his mouth and spews his senseless drivel, one must wonder just how safe we really are and how he ever ended up as president (thank McCain).

In the most purest analogies:

Dick Cheney is the hunter.
Obama is Bambi.

Decide for yourself:

Obama’s first 100 days – a short review.

In light of Barack’s Obama first 100 days in office, I would like to offer my perception of where America is and how Obama appears to have acted so far in office. This is all from memory and I am sure there have been moments of frustration and happiness that have now been forgotten, but these are the elements that stand out.

The good.
- Freezing White House pay: This was done in the first week I believe and I am not entirely sure what the outcome was. There were no details on how long the freeze was supposed to stay in place, but to me there was some kind of effort undertaken to curtail spending.
- People getting involved: Whether you like Obama or not, he got people interested in politics on a wider scale than anyone else before him. Utilizing technology he brought many individuals, mostly misguided, into the political fray. Hopefully if they continue following the developments they will be able to learn more about the economy, politics and will be in a better position to make a more educated vote.

The bad.
- Shutting down CIA black ops prisons: Our CIA was finally pulling their sh*t together and he is starting to dismantle them due to three cases of water-boarding? Clinton has demonstrated during his presidency that gutting our intelligence leads to 9/11, why not learn from our mistakes?
- Ending enhanced interrogation techniques: Despite overwhelming evidence that “torturing” KSM and Abu Zubayda stopped Americans from dying, Obama prefers to end the only mechanism that save lives and apologize to scumbags for the mistreatment.
- Leaving war veterans out to dry: Obama proposed at one point that war veterans acquire private insurance to pay for their medical needs. This proposal was so disgusting and flagrant that he quickly pulled the idea after a massive backlash. He would rather provide free medical insurance to illegal aliens than to our vets! The implication this could possibly have is devastating and to contrive an idea of this nature is simply unthinkable. Imagine if a soldier had to run under gunfire to save his buddy, but then realized he did not have insurance and could not risk being shot in the foot. Just how out of touch must Obama be to consider this?
- Apologizing on behalf of America: Because Obama makes the distinction between his presidency and everyone before him, he apologized to seemingly everyone for all our sins. We are the greatest country in the world not because we were apologizing for our accomplishments, but because we were proud and confident in what we were doing. Insetead Obama prefers to hug Chavez, talk with Cuba, listen to South American dictators and grovel in front of Europe.
- Bowing to the Saudis: This is a matter of personal dissatisfaction, but bowing to Saudi monarchy was a spineless and disgusting gesture. There is no justification for it, considering how badly Bush was bashed for even being friends with them – I can’t imagine who could possibly have applauded the move. To me it was just a gesture of weakness and not some innovative approach to diplomacy that some liberals made it out to be.
- Disrespecting the British: Returning the bust of Churchill and giving Gordon Brown a pathetic gift paves the way to a chilly relationship with our closest ally.

This is what comes to mind and it is definitely an incomplete list. I also specifically avoided some of the legislature that Obama pushed for and signed because Congress plays a significant role in such cases. Instead I prefer to delve into the man himself and some of the policies that stem from his values and beliefs.

Overall I am unhappy with our president and not because I refused to vote for him and not because I could never support a liberal president – but rather that his liberalism has gone beyond what I could have ever imagined. Oddly enough, I do not fall into the camp of media pundits that have now suddenly realized that Obama is a socialist, I was fully aware of his capabilities, I simply am stunned at the speed in which some of the policies and actions have been implemented.