Bye Bye Pelosi?

Dick Morris thinks so:

Pinocchio, Snow White, and Superman are out for a stroll in town one day. As they walked, they come across a sign: "Beauty contest for the most beautiful woman in the world."
"I am entering!" said Snow White. After half an hour she comes out and they ask her, "Well, how'd ya do?"
"First Place!" said Snow White.
They continue walking and they see a sign: "Contest for the strongest man in the world."
"I'm entering," says Superman. After half an hour, he returns and they ask him, "How did you make out?"
"First Place," answers Superman. "Did you ever doubt?"
They continue walking when they see a sign: "Contest! Who is the greatest liar in the world?" Pinocchio enters.
After half an hour he returns with tears in his eyes.
"What happened?" they asked.
"Who the hell is this Nancy Pelosi?" asked Pinocchio.

Source

Update:

I don't have anything more to say about the CIA lied allegations"
--Nancy Pelosi

Translation:

"Rahm Emanuel sent me a package with a dead fish and a note inside saying if I don't shut up my pie hole and continue to distract the Lightworker I may end up on the bottom of the Bay with my feet encased in a block of concrete. I'm scared $hytless, so please leave me alone"

Wanna See How Reliably Pro-Gun A Pro-Gun Democrat Is?

You don't need to look further than the pro-gun Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, the staunch pro-Second Amendment supporter and politician who took over Hillary's Senatorial seat:

Quote:

NY Lawmakers Want Five Year Handgun Licenses At the federal level, U.S. Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand are urging President Barack Obama to re-instate a 90 day retention period for background check records. Right now, those records are held only 24 hours. Source

Yup, the Democrats will never have enough votes to push of another AWB. And my name is Santa Claus.

The Mainstream Media Long, Agonizing Death

What happens when a business, any business puts a sign on the entrance door saying "we don't serve no stinking conservatives"?
If you guessed the business will lose roughly 50% of its customers you got it right. And replacing that sign with another one saying "going out of business" is only a matter of time.

Well, this simple concept of not discriminating against certain categories of customers seems to be too complicated to comprehend to the enlightened, open-minded liberals who run the mainstream media. To them, being Democrat ideologues and lapdogs for Obama trumps over their duty to be impartial observers and reporters of the news.
The result? The liberals in the media don't serve all their customers anymore, they only serve the 50% that agrees with them politically. The other 50% who they refuse to serve (or even badmouths) stops buying their product and refuse to put money in their pockets. Simple economics the mind of a liberal would never understand.

Here is another real life example of how this failure of the media management to serve all readers not only the liberal ones is claiming another victim: The Boston Globe.

Details of threat to close Globe emerge
Storm over Morrissey Boulevard

There’s a mutinous mood on Morrissey Boulevard, as Boston Globe staffers lash out over a stunning ultimatum from parent company The New York Times [NYT] Co.

“They’re nickel-and-diming people,” said a Globe union official who spoke on condition of anonymity, adding that top executives at The New York Times Co., which owns the Globe, “have ruined” the sagging broadsheet.

On Thursday, Times executives told representatives from the Boston paper’s 13 unions that they must trim $20 million from their budgets by May 1 or the Times would shut the paper down.

The move came days after the Globe reduced its newsroom work force by about 70 employees, full and part time, through a mix of voluntary buyouts and layoffs.

“We’re going to go through the same thing three months later,” said a frustrated union boss.

Other outraged Globe staffers and area union leaders yesterday accused the Times of bullying tactics designed to make the money losing Morrissey Boulevard paper more attractive to a potential buyer, or just strongarm long-sought concessions from unions.

“They are trying to strip it down to the bare bones, and then they are either going to sell it or go all digital,” said a Globe union official.

“If you are a business owner, and you are looking to squeeze costs, this is the perfect time,” said another local union honcho.

Other Globe staffers grieved and worried for their paper. They spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the climate at the newspaper.

“A lot of people are really sad,” said one Globe reporter.

Times management declined to comment again yesterday.

Sources yesterday described an heated and acrimonious mood in the meeting between representatives of 13 Globe unions and Times and Globe executives who presented the deadline threat. They spoke on condition of anonymity, citing the climate at the newspaper.

“They were crying poormouth,” a union member said, “saying there’s no advertising revenues. Of course there’s no revenue. They just fired about 50 advertising solicitors three months ago.”

One union official pointed out to the Globe brass that company managers received bonuses earlier this year. “That set them back,” a union source said.

Boston Newspaper Guild President Daniel Totten, who represents the paper’s largest union, issued a memo Friday to members saying the unions have already given up more than their fair share in recent years.

But newspaper analysts say the guild is likely to give in to management demands, which include proposals for pay cuts, the end of pension contributions and the elimination of lifetime job guarantees for longtime staffers.

“They will give in, right away,” said Douglas McIntyre, editor of 24/7 Wall Street, a New York financial media company. “A 20 percent cut is better than a 100 percent job loss.”

The Globe — which was bought in 1993 in a $1.1 billion New England media package — reportedly is on track to lose $85 million this year without the concessions. The Times Company lost almost $58 million last year.

Those losses come amid an unforgiving climate for print media: In the past month, the revenue-losing Rocky Mountain News closed, the Chicago Sun-Times declared bankruptcy, and the Seattle Post- Intelligencer laid off almost its entire staff and went online.

“The New York Times Company can’t afford to keep the Boston Globe open,” McIntyre said. “The Globe lost $50 million last year, and that could keep going up.”
Source

I have a suggestion for an emergency plan that may help cut costs and keep them afloat for a while: lay off all the reporters, you don't need them. Their news come from one source: the Democrat National Committee.

Look Who Is Doing Great Financially...

"Never let a good crisis go to waste".
Some may think these words were first spoken by Obama's #1 Gauleiter, Herr Rahm Emanuel.
I have my doubts about that. I believe "Dead Fish" Emanuel learned these words from George Soros - scavenger billionaire, former Nazi collaborator, promoter of the one world government and rightful owner of the Democrat Party:

UK's Daily Mail:

'I'm having a very good crisis,' says Soros as hedge fund managers make billions off recession


A hedge fund manager who predicted the global credit crunch has said the financial crisis has been 'stimulating' and the culmination of his life's work.

George Soros, who predicted the global financial crisis twice before, was one of the few people to anticipate and prepare for the current economic collapse.

Mr Soros said his prediction meant he was better able to brace his Quantum investment fund against the gloabal storm.

But other investors failed to take notice of his prediction and his decision to come out of retirement in 2007 to manage the fund made him $US2.9 billion.

And while the financial crisis continued to deepen across the globe, the 78-year-old still managed to make $1.1 billion last year.

'It is, in a way, the culminating point of my life’s work,' he told national newspaper The Australian.

Soros is one of 25, top hedge fund managers from across Wall Street who have defied the credit crunch crisis to reap a total of $11.6billion (£7.9bn) last year.

I have never understood how anti-capitalist liberals let themselves and their ideals to be purchased at wholesale prices by a man who is the embodiment of what they hate most: a capitalist shark. And not just any kind of capitalist shark; the Great White of the financial speculators, a man so ruthless and so greedy he brings entire nations to ruin just to fill up his bank accounts and satisfy his mega-ego.
But...but...but...he's a Mecena, a benefactor for the poor and the hungry he gives millions to underdeveloped countries, liberals cry.
Yes you morons, but that's just another investment of his. He's buying entire countries and their corrupt government for cheap. The Mafia Dons are also helping the poor; that's how their recruit their future soldiers.

We Get The Money, You Keep The Change Presents: Maxine Waters, The Poor Black People Advocate

Wall Street Journal:

Waters Helped Bank Whose Stock She Owned

California Democrat Has Championed Minority-Owned One United on Capitol Hill and Criticized Its Government Regulators

By SUSAN SCHMIDT

WASHINGTON -- When Rep. Barney Frank was looking to aid a Boston-based lender last fall, the Massachusetts Democrat urged Maxine Waters, a colleague on the House Financial Services Committee, to "stay out of it," he says.

The reason: Ms. Waters, a longtime congresswoman from California, had close ties to the minority-owned institution, OneUnited Bank.

Ms. Waters and her husband have both held financial stakes in the bank. Until recently, her husband was a director. At the same time, Ms. Waters has publicly boosted OneUnited's executives and criticized its government regulators during congressional hearings. Last fall, she helped secure the bank a meeting with Treasury officials.


Her involvement isn't new. Ms. Waters has detailed her financial ties in a series of federal disclosure forms and has been vocal in public in support of the bank. Those ties, however, have received little public attention. Nor is it well known how the influential lawmaker has over the years acted to support the bank and its executives.

Such potential conflicts of interest are more serious as the banking system's crisis has led the government to take an increasingly active role in overseeing financial institutions, including OneUnited. The financial-services committee on which Ms. Waters sits oversees banking issues, and the lawmaker is a potential future chairman.

Representatives of the bank and Ms. Waters didn't return calls seeking comment. Ms. Waters's congressional staff didn't respond to written questions about her and her husband's relationship with the bank.

Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group, says Ms. Waters should have recused herself from any matters involving the bank. If her support helped OneUnited, "it was a disservice to her constituents," Ms. Krumholz says.

Ms. Waters, who represents inner-city Los Angeles, hasn't made a secret of her family's financial interest in OneUnited. Referring to her family's investment, she said in 2007 during a congressional hearing that for African-Americans, "the test of your commitment to economic expansion and development and support for business is whether or not you put your money where your mouth is."

OneUnited's executives have donated $12,500 to Ms. Waters's election campaigns.



Through a series of acquisitions, OneUnited grew to become what it says is the largest African-American-owned bank in the country. It once counted the late Motown Records boss Jheryl Busby as a vice chairman.

Ms. Waters and her husband, Sidney Williams, were investors in two African-American owned California banks that merged with other lenders in 2002 to form OneUnited. Congressional financial-disclosure forms show Ms. Waters acquired OneUnited stock worth between $250,000 and $500,000 in March 2004, as did Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams joined the board of OneUnited that year.

Each sold shares in September 2004 -- including Ms. Waters's entire stake -- but Mr. Williams continued to hold varying amount of the company's stock. In the lawmaker's most recent financial-disclosure form, dated May 2008 and covering the prior year, Ms. Waters reported that her husband held between $250,000 and $500,000 worth of the bank's stock.


Getty ImagesMr. Williams also received interest payments from a separate holding at the bank, also worth between $250,000 and $500,000. The 2008 form doesn't specify what that is. Mr. Williams stepped down from the bank's board last spring. It couldn't be learned whether he still owns stock in the bank. Mr. Williams didn't return calls seeking comment.

At a hearing on minority lending in 2007, Ms. Waters criticized regulators for not doing enough to help minority banks stave off mergers with non-minority institutions. The lawmaker said she had contacted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in 2002 over such concerns and "I was told that there was nothing that could be done."

In her 2007 remarks, Ms. Waters alluded to two banks, Independence Bank of Washington, D.C., and "another bank that was about to be acquired by a major white bank out of Illinois."

Ms. Waters didn't mention that OneUnited had been an unsuccessful suitor of Independence, which had been taken over several years earlier. The second bank, which she didn't name, appears to have been Family Savings Bank of Los Angeles. In 2002, that bank backed out of a merger agreement with FBOP Bank of Oak Brook, Ill., and shortly afterward was acquired by OneUnited.

News reports at the time credited the intervention of Ms. Waters and others for Family Savings's change of heart.

At the hearing, Ms. Waters praised OneUnited's senior counsel, Robert P. Cooper, as "typical of the young, brilliant minds that have been amassed at OneUnited Bank."

OneUnited's minority-lending record is mixed. The bank received "outstanding" Community Reinvestment Act ratings for lending in Los Angeles. It has weak ratings in Massachusetts and failed to meet minimum standards in Florida.

In January, Ms. Waters acknowledged she made a call to the Treasury on OneUnited's behalf. The bank's capital, which was heavily invested in shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was all but wiped out with the federal takeover of the two mortgage giants, and the bank was seeking help from regulators.

OneUnited eventually secured bailout funds under the government's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, which was set up later that month.

In a brief interview in January, Ms. Waters said she was unaware the bank received $12 million of TARP money, which arrived in December. OneUnited was "just a small" bank, she said.

A provision designed to aid OneUnited was written into the federal bailout legislation by Mr. Frank, who is chairman of the financial-services panel. Mr. Frank has said he inserted the provision to help the only African-American owned bank in his home state. He said in an interview that Ms. Waters's interest "had zero impact on the outcome because I would have done it anyway."

In October, regulators demanded that OneUnited raise fresh capital and name an independent board. The bank was ordered to stop paying for a Porsche used by one of its executives and its chairman's $6.4 million beachfront home in Pacific Palisades, Calif., a luxury enclave between Malibu and Santa Monica.

---

Another Pro-Gun Democrat Politician Standing on Principles

But...but...but...there are Democrats who are pro-Second Amendment and they will stand against their Party and will not allow Obama to pass a new Assault Weapon Ban. So don't you worry T.P., anti-gun Democrats will not have enough votes from their own Party to even try to pull another AWB.

At least that's what every liberal gun owner(?) trolling on pretty much every gun forum I visit told me.

"Gillibrand backs gun control bill"

"WASHINGTON — In her first vote on the issue since being appointed to the Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., on Thursday voted to reject a measure that would expand gun rights."

also see:

"In turnaround, Gillibrand backs key gun-control issue"

WASHINGTON - Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand made her turnaround on a key gun-control issue official this week: She signed a letter seeking repeal of the NRA-backed Tiahrt Amendments, even though she sought to make them permanent just last June.

The letter, made public Wednesday, asks Attorney General Eric Holder for his support for the repeal of Tiahrt, an appropriations bill amendment that since 2003 has restricted use of federal gun-trace data.

The letter was written and circulated by Gillibrand's most outspoken critic: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-Mineola), a gun-control activist.

Didn't take her long to start ass kissing Schumer and Bloomberg...

The List Of Shame, The List Of Traitors

IHateTheMedia is taking a look at the US Senators who would like to impose a Stalinist control over the Constitutional right of Free Speech in America:

Which Senators voted in favor of censorship…uh…we mean the Fairness Doctrine?

By now you’ve probably heard that the Senate approved an amendment a few days ago to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine.” Republican Senator Jim DeMint’s amendment passed by a comfortable margin of 87-to-11.

Although one would think it’s important to know which senators cast their votes in favor of censorship, we can’t find a single news report that calls out their names. So we’ll do it:

Bingaman (D-NM), Conrad (D-ND), Dorgan (D-ND), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA), Reed (D-RI), Rockefeller (D-WV), Sanders (I-VT), and Whitehouse (D-RI).

In addition, Kennedy (D-MA) did not vote, but does anyone doubt that he would have joined them Infamous Eleven had his health been up to it?

Please note that there’s a “D” attached to ten of the eleven of the names. “D” as in Democrat. “D” as in unDemocratic.

I thought it would be interesting to go a step further and dig up some information from OnTheIssues.org in order to see how the unDemocratic Senators who would like to trample over the First Amendment are scoring on the Second Amendment: the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This is what I found:

Bingaman (D-NM)
* Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

Conrad (D-ND)
* Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)

Dorgan (D-ND)
* Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)

Feinstein (D-CA)
* Licensing and federal registration of all gun sales. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)

Harkin (D-IA)
* Voted NO on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Johnson (D-SD)
* Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)
* Rated C+ by the NRA, indicating a mixed voting record on gun rights. (Dec 2003)

Kerry (D-MA)
* Country less safe-terrorists can now buy assault weapons. (Oct 2004)
* Supports 2nd Amendment, but wants to ban assault weapons. (Sep 2004)
* Gun owner & hunter, but rights come with responsibility. (Mar 2004)
* Democratic Party shouldn’t be for the NRA. (Nov 2003)
* Supports assault weapons ban & Brady Bill. (Oct 2003)
* Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)
* Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Reed (D-RI)
* Voted NO on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Rockefeller (D-WV)
* Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
* Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
* Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
* Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Sanders (I-VT)
* Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
* Voted YES on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
* Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
* Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

Whitehouse (D-RI)
* Common-sense solutions to fight gun crime. (Jul 2006)
* Fight to keep guns off our streets. (Jul 2006)
* Strengthened penalties for armed criminals. (Dec 2005)
* Voted NO on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)

With the (marginal) exception of a single Senator, here is the conclusion: these low life politicians who want to introduce censorship and stifle free speech also want our guns.
Why?
Democrats want our guns because they know that as long we have the means to defend ourselves against the tyrannical government envisioned by them, they cannot and will not succeed to suppress free speech nor the rest of our civil liberties.
The only thing that stands between Democracy and Stalinism in America is the the Second Amendment and the guns we own as free citizens.
As for these despicable unAmericans, they deserve nothing but our contempt.

Homicidal Islamic Bomber Recruited And Indoctrinated In The US

Clearly this homicidal jihadi scum wasn't indoctrinated in an American mosque and by an Islamic cleric. Otherwise the media and the authorities would have told us, right?

Militants Drew Recruit in U.S., F.B.I. Says

By DAVID JOHNSTON

WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, said Monday that a Somali-American man who was one of several suicide bombers in a terrorist attack last October in Somalia had apparently been indoctrinated into his extremist beliefs while living in the United States.

The man, Shirwa Ahmed, was the first known suicide bomber with American citizenship. He immigrated with his family to the Minneapolis area in the mid-1990s, Mr. Mueller said, but he returned to Somalia after he was recruited by a militant group.

“It appears that this individual was radicalized in his hometown in Minnesota,” Mr. Mueller said, speaking at a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations. Minneapolis claims the country’s largest Somali population.

Mr. Ahmed was driving a vehicle laden with explosives that blew up in northern Somalia in an attack that killed as many as 30 people, according to news reports. His body was returned to the United States with the help of the F.B.I.

Federal authorities have said that Mr. Ahmed was one of as many as two dozen young men of Somali descent who had disappeared in the past two years from their homes in the Minneapolis area after being recruited by the Shabab, a militia that is suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda and that has waged a war against the Somali government.

Mr. Mueller suggested that Somali recruiting posed a serious issue for the F.B.I., which has sought the cooperation of the Somali community to try to understand whether the recruiting represents a threat.

“It raises the question of whether these young men will one day come home, and, if so, what might they undertake here,” he said.

This begs the question: if all American Muslims are peaceful people minding their own business as we are always told by CAIR and their liberal Dhimmicrat friends.... then where, how and who brainwashed this man to become a homicide bomber?
I think I know the answer: must be a side effect of the fluoride in the water.

Dilbert Today

I Am So Confused...Weren't Democrats Supposed To Have "Learned Their Lesson" ?

Say goodbye to cheap military style sporting rifles and parts kits imported from Eastern Europe:

REP. ENGEL URGES PRESIDENT OBAMA TO ENFORCE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTED ASSAULT WEAPONS

Chairman of the House Western Hemisphere Subcommittee Leads Letter with 53 Members of Congress

Washington, D.C.--Congressman Eliot Engel, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, wrote a letter signed by 53 Members of Congress urging President Obama to “return to enforcement of the law banning imports of assault weapons, which was previously enforced during the administrations of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.” The letter was also led by Congressman Michael Castle (R-DE) and Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY).

“The alarming prevalence of imported assault weapons in the US has put our nation’s police officers at risk. Returning to the Bush 41/Clinton enforcement of the ban on imported assault weapons will protect our brave police forces and all people throughout New York and the United States,” said Rep. Engel.

Engel added that returning to enforcement of the imported assault weapons ban is “a no-brainer that would require no legislative action.”

Complete anti-gun tripe available directly from the horse's mouth here

Gungrabbers of America, unite!

Co-signers of the letter:

Eliot L. Engel (D-NY)
Michael N. Castle (R-DE)
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
Gregory Meeks (D-NY)
Christopher Smith (R-NJ)
Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Nita Lowey (D-NY)
Joseph Crowley (D-NY)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Ellen Tauscher (D-CA)
Louise Slaughter (D-NY)
Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
David Price (D-NC)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
Edward Markey (D-NA)
Chaka Fattah (D-PA)
Jim Moran (D-VA)
Robert Wexler (D-FL)
Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
Brad Sherman (D-CA)
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Jose Serrano (D-NY)
John Conyers (D-MI)
Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)
Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)
John Olver (D-MA)
Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Rush Holt (D-NJ)
Linda Sanchez (D-CA)
Albio Sires (D-NJ)
Betty Sutton (D-OH)
Donna Christensen (D-VI)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Sam Farr (D-CA)
Jim McGovern (D-MA)
Lois Capps (D-CA)
Allyson Schwartz (D-PA)
Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)
Michael McMahon (D-NY)
Donna Edwards (D-MD)
Tim Bishop (D-NY)
Pete Stark (D-CA)
Doris Matsui (D-CA)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Paul Tonko (D-NY)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)

I am shocked, I tell you, shocked!

All Democrats, not a single Republican.
So why it is then on every gun board I visit, every confused liberal posing as a gun owner assured me that "Democrats learned their lesson" not to support more anti-gun crap?

Uh...and speaking about no-brainer, Congressman: when did you had your last PET Scan?

We Will Not Disarm!!!

Author Unknown: ( from Soldier of Fortune magazine, October 1994.)

We Will Not Disarm!!!

Notice To All Politicians:

It is time to speak plainly for the good citizens and patriots of this nation who believe unendingly in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Though foreign governments may disarm their subjects, we will not go down that road. We will not disarm and see our freedoms stripped away. The lessons of history are numerous, clear, and bloody.

A disarmed population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to-and dependence upon - the organs of a parental state. A disarmed population will lose-either piecemeal or in one sweeping act - those basic rights for which the citizens of America risked their lives and fortunes over 200 years ago.

We Will Not Disarm.

The right to self-protection-the internal directive of every living creature, be it mouse or man is the most fundamental right of all. It is a right that must be exercised against the predators of the streets, against the predators hidden within agencies of law enforcement, and against the most dangerous predators of all - those to be found in government, whose insidious grasping for power is relentless and never-ending.

We Will Not Disarm.

Not in the face of robbers, rapists and murderers who prey upon our families and friends. Nor in the face of police and bureau agents who would turn a blind eye to the Constitution, who would betray the birthright of their countrymen; nor in the face of politicians of the lowest order-those who pander to the ignorant, the weak, the fearful, the naive; those indebted to a virulent strain of the rich who insulate themselves from the dangers imposed upon other Americans and then preach disarmament.

* We will not surrender our handguns.
* We will not surrender our hunting arms.
* And we will not surrender our firearms of military pattern or military utility, nor their proper furnishings, nor the right to buy, to sell, or to manufacture such items.

Firearms of military utility, which serve well and nobly in times of social disturbance as tools of defense for the law-abiding, serve also in the quiet role of prevention, against both the criminal and the tyrannical. An armed citizenry the well-regulated militia of the Second Amendment, properly armed with military firearms - is a powerful deterrent, on both conscious and subconscious levels, to those inclined toward governmental usurpation's.

An armed citizenry stands as a constant reminder to those in power that, though they may violate our rights temporarily, they will not do so endlessly and without consequence. And should Americans again be confronted with the necessity of - may God forbid it - throwing off the chains of a tyrannical and suffocating regime, firearms designed to answer the particular demands of warfare will provide the swiftest and most decisive means to this end.

Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen's possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, provides an open window through which a corrupt government will crawl to steal away the remainder of our firearms and our liberties. Any law which prohibits or limits a citizen's possession of firearms of military utility or their proper furnishings, being directly contrary to the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment, is inimical to the Constitution, to the United States of America, and to its citizens.

Now-today-we are witnessing the perilous times foreseen by the architects of the Constitution. These are times when our government is demanding - in the guise of measures for the common good - the relinquishment of several rights guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution, foremost among which is the right to keep and bear arms for our own defense. These are times when our government has abdicated its primary responsibility-to provide for the security of its citizens. Swift and sure punishment of outlaws is absent, and in its place is offered the false remedy of disarming the law-abiding. Where this unconstitutional action has been given the force of law, it has failed to provide relief and has produced greater social discord. This discord in turn now serves as the false basis for the demand that we give up other rights, and for the demand for more police, more agents of bureaucratic control to enforce the revocation of these rights.

Legislators, justices and law officers must bear in mind that the foundation of their duties is to uphold the fundamental law of the land-the Constitution. They must bear in mind that the unconstitutional act of disarming one's fellow citizens will also disarm one's parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, children and children's children. They must bear in mind that there are good citizens who - taking heed of George Washington's belief that arms are the liberty teeth of the people-will not passively allow these teeth to be torn out. There are good citizens who-taking heed of Benjamin Franklin's admonition that those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety-will surrender not one of their rights. Those who eat away at our right to own and use firearms are feeding on the roots of a plant over two centuries old, a plant whose blossom is the most free, most powerful nation ever to exist on the face of this planet.

The right to keep and bear arms is the tap root of this plant. All other rights were won at the point of a gun and will endure only at the point of a gun. Could they speak, millions upon millions of this world's dead souls would testify to this truth. Millions upon millions of the living can so testify today. Now - today - isa critical moment in our history.

Will we Americans passively lie down before a government grown disdainful of its best citizens? Or will we again declare:

WE are the government, government functions at our behest, and it may not rescind our sacred rights? Will we place our faith in public servants who behave like our masters? Or will we place our faith in the words and deeds of the daring, far-seeing men and women whose blood, sweat and tears brought forth this great nation?

Will we believe those who assure us that the police officer will shield us from the criminal? Or will we believe our eyes and ears, presented every day with news of our unarmed neighbors falling prey in their homes, on our streets, in our places of work and play?

Will we bow our heads to cowards and fools who will not learn and do not understand the lessons of human history? Or will we stand straight and assume the daily tasks and risks that liberty entails? Will we ignore even the lessons of this present era-which has seen the cruel oppression of millions on the continents of Europe, Asia, Africa and South America-and believe that the continent of North America is immune to such political disease? Or will we wisely accept the realities of this world, wisely listen to and make use of the precautions provided by our ancestors?

Will we be deceived by shameless liars who say that disarmament equals safety, helplessness equals strength, patriotism equals criminality? Or will we mark the words of our forefathers, who wrote in plain language: The right of the people tokeep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Let us make known: We will choose the latter option in every case.

Legislators: Do your duty to your country. Uphold the Constitution as you swore to do. Do not shame yourselves by knocking loose the mighty keystone of this great republic - the right to bear arms.

Justices: Do your duty to your country. Examine the origins of our right to weaponry and uphold the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

Lawmen: Do your duty to your country. Do not be misguided and misused. Your task is to serve and to protect-not to oppress, to disarm and to make helpless your countrymen. To the blind, the ignorant, the apathetic, the safe and sheltered, these may seem to be concerns of another age. They are not. They are as vital as they ever have been through history. For times may change but human nature does not. And it is to protect forever against the evil in human nature that the Founding Fathers set aside certain rights as inviolable.

For these reasons we must now make known:

We will not passively take the path that leads to tyranny. We will not go down that road. We Will Not Disarm.

Obama Congratulates Chavez, Ceausescu For Democratic Re-election

"WASHINGTON (Associated Press) :
-- The Obama administration says the referendum that cleared the way for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to run for re-election was democratic.

In other news (this time from an alternate reality where the Berlin wall wasn't torn down in 1989)

"BUCHAREST (Scanteia) official newspaper or the Romanian Communist Party:
--President Obama sent congratulatory message to the Romanian leader Nicolae Ceausescu expressing his respect and admiration for the 89 year old communist leader, reelected tonight in a free and democratic election for the 11th time.

The same evening CNN aired the following song dedicated to the Great Romanian Leader (click play):



Ceausescu Re-elected
(1980's original Ceausescu cult of personality song)

Lyrics translated from Romanian


The Party, the country and the people
In a single mind and a single Leader
Toghether we are building the future
Towards communism we are flying ahead

Refrain:
Ceausescu re-elected at the 14th Party Congress (repeat 3 more times)

We are the masters of today and every single thing
In our country, together we are fighting
To show you that WE CAN
To dare, to wish and to HOPE
(wait...where did I heard that before?)

Refrain:
Ceausescu re-elected at the 14th Party Congress (repeat 3 more times)


The nation is proud an free
It build so many citadels
The flag of wonderful Romania
It is also proud of its country



Refrain:
Ceausescu re-elected at the 14th Party Congress (repeat 3 more times)

The Party represents the power
Leading us toward the future
The Party is the love
For our brave Leader


Refrain:
Ceausescu re-elected at the 14th Party Congress (repeat 3 more times)

President Ceausescu expressing his deep gratitude for the American comrade Obama for calling his 11th re-election "democratic":




UPDATE: Some readers complain the first piece of news, the one about the Obama administration declaring "democratic" the referendum on Chavez eligibility to run for a third Presidential to be untrue.
Got some news for you folks: it is very true. Washington Post confirms it.

As for Obama congratulating Ceausescu for his 11th "democratic" reelection, I am pretty sure he wouldn't have any problem doing it.
After all, if Obama doesn't seem to mind to call an election referendum held by a communist dictator like Chavez "democratic", why would he object to endorse the 11th re-election of another communist dictator?

Only problem is, Ceausescu is a bullet riddled rotting corpse since Christmas Day 1989 - the day he faced the Romanian peoples justice and the execution squad; therefore Obama lost another opportunity to make nice to and have a constructive, no preconditions, open dialogue with another genocidal thug.

Senior Dianne Feinstein Just Can't Keep Her Pie Hole Shut

Here is another example of a lib passing military secrets to the enemy. Where is the outrage of the Democrats accusing Bush & Cheney for blowing the cover of an agent not currently undercover?

LA Slimes:


Feinstein comment on U.S. drones likely to embarrass Pakistan

The Predator planes that launch missile strikes against militants are based in Pakistan, the senator says. That suggests a much deeper relationship with the U.S. than Islamabad would like to admit.


Reporting from Washington -- A senior U.S. lawmaker said Thursday that unmanned CIA Predator aircraft operating in Pakistan are flown from an air base in that country, a revelation likely to embarrass the Pakistani government and complicate its counter-terrorism collaboration with the United States.

The disclosure by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, marked the first time a U.S. official had publicly commented on where the Predator aircraft patrolling Pakistan take off and land.

At a hearing, Feinstein expressed surprise over Pakistani opposition to the campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against Islamic extremist targets along Pakistan's northwestern border.

"As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base," she said.

The basing of the pilotless aircraft in Pakistan suggests a much deeper relationship with the United States on counter-terrorism matters than has been publicly acknowledged. Such an arrangement would be at odds with protests lodged by officials in Islamabad, the capital, and could inflame anti-American sentiment in the country.

The CIA declined to comment, but former U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, confirmed that Feinstein's account was accurate.

Dianne Feinstein playing peek-a-boo with Bin Laden

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, said Feinstein's comments put Pakistan's government on the spot.

"If accurate, what this says is that Pakistani involvement, or at least acquiescence, has been much more extensive than has previously been known," he said. "It puts the Pakistani government in a far more difficult position [in terms of] its credibility with its own people. Unfortunately it also has the potential to threaten Pakistani-American relations."
Complete article at the link

So here it is: Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee demonstrating how being intelligent isn't a requirement for the position she holds.
Or maybe she's hot for Bin Laden and she's trying to help him. Who knows?

EXCLUSIVE! Harry Reid challenging Nancy Pelosi for the title of World's Dumbest Bag Of Hammers

Watch this short video of U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claiming in America paying income tax is voluntary!

This is a must see video...Harry Reid is a strong contender for the title of World Dumbest Bag Of Hammers, currently held by the Congress Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi.







He must have learned that from Tom Daschle, Hilda Solis, Timothy Geithner, Charlie Rangel and Nancy Killefer and...Wesley Snipes :D

Dhimmicrats Petition Against Rush Limbaugh

In their endless display of idiocy, the Dummies are announcing to the world just how effective they think Limbaugh is.

FOX News:
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online petition to express outrage at conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh for saying he wanted President Obama to "fail."

"Jobs, health care, our place in the world -- the stakes for our nation are high and every American needs President Obama to succeed," the petition reads. "Stand strong against Rush Limbaugh's Attacks -- sign our petition, telling Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama."

The petition comes after Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill Friday that they need to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

On Monday, Limbaugh shot back at Obama, opening his show by saying, "I'm the man you should not be listening, according to President Obama."
"I think [Obama] wants me to fail," Limbaugh said. "He's more frightened of me than he is of John Boehner, which doesn't say much for our party."

The remarks came after Limbaugh said last week on his radio show: "If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to this guy, say 'okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails'."

The committee's online petition includes a YouTube video featuring audio clips of the radio host's recent remarks.

Its funny, when the democrats/liberals insulted and disrespected President Bush in front of the eyes of the world, and did everything in their power to sabotage the war effort in Iraq, and trashed all the Bush polices in order to protect America against terrorism... That was alright, that was good thing. It was patriotic.

But little AM radio host Limbaugh hoping that B.O.'s socialist polices fail is a act of treason. Did anyone ever hear Bush tell America, or anyone for that matter not to listen to Chris Matthew, Jon Stewart, Franken, or Keith Oblermann by name?


Update:
Seattle Times Jan 09, 2001 headline:
Democrats begin waiting for George W. Bush to fail

This goes back to my point, liberals have no standards, no shame, no brains, they act like the Communist Party thugs I had the displeasure to interact with for 26 years in my old country.