Saturday, January 30, 2010

Ellie Light EXPOSED

In an Alien Rants exclusive, we have obtained a copy of the letter to the editor sent by Ellie Light to the Podunk, BS Gazette. (BS is one of the 57 states.)

Here is the letter:

We did a forensic analysis of the back of the letter and determined that it was handled by someone who is missing the middle finger of their right hand:

Now, who do we know that fits that description?

Just kidding, folks. Besides, the literary style doesn't match Rahm's in the slightest.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Smile, it's Friday

The Stars Come Out...

...for the cause of climate change.

It's great that the IPCC has such luminaries as Al Gore.

And how blessed they are to have the likes of Danny Glover to make the connection between global warming and earthquakes.

And now the IPCC can claim none other than Osama binLaden.

You see, Osama has made the connection between CO2 and Judeo-Christianity. Finally, a theological link.

Gives you goose-bumps, doesn't it?

Equality - Obama style

As the Constitution says, everyone is equal. But as Orwell says, some are more equal than others. Despite his "experience" as a Constitutional lawyer, Obama seems to lean toward the Animal Farm definition.

Take student loans for example. Here's his idea about repayment:
"And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college."

(ACTUALLY, ALL OF THEIR DEBT WILL BE PASSED ON TO THEIR GRANDCHILDREN, BUT THAT CONCEPT ESCAPES OBAMA ALTOGETHER. How things have changed. It used to be that grandparents tried to help the grandkids with college.)

So, you get an extra perk for public service. Not only did the Prez deep-six that outmoded American ideal of paying your own way, he's given government workers another 50% discount on top of it.

Read it again. If you work for the private sector for 20 years at an average of $50K/year, you will pay back $100K.

But if you work for the gub-mint, you're done at $50K. That's Obama's equality for you.

But wait, if you work for a gub-mint agency you are also more likely to have...
...a paid pension program
...better health insurance at lower cost to you
...collective bargaining, even for professionals (AFSCME, NEA or SEIU)
...more paid holidays
...stimulus money to preserve your job

Now, why would Obama offer these extra benefits to public employees?

Here's a hint: Check Barry's own resume. And Michelle's. And the people he surrounds himself with.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Bus wreck in DC

It appears that La Raza was run over by a bus on Pennsylvania Avenue last night.

Here's what Obama said about Comprehensive Immigration Reform:
"And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -– to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation."

So, what is he offering to those who did not "play by the rules" and snuck in or overstayed their visa?

It sounds like he just threw illegal aliens under the bus.

Either he left that part out, or he's realized that amnesty and 10% unemployment don't mix.

But watch out; those very words could encourage opportunists running in November. If we get in another bidding war between RINOs and Democrats the Latinos win. A candidate in the primary who is bashful about his stand on amnesty bears watching at all times. The best bet is the guy who speaks his mind on the matter and has a history of standing up to illegal aliens. All others are a crap shoot.

And how hard is it for Obama to reverse direction? Not hard at all. Just ask him what happened to his promise to televise Obamacare debates on C-Span. A promise is a promise...unless you are a politician.

Live from Tampa

Scene's from Obama's visit to Tampa.
Topic: High-speed Rail Projects

Sing along everyone.


Lyle Lanley: Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
What'd I say?

Ned Flanders: Monorail!

Lyle Lanley: What's it called?

Patty+Selma: Monorail!

Lyle Lanley: That's right! Monorail!

[crowd chants `Monorail' softly and rhythmically]

Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud...

Lyle Lanley: It glides as softly as a cloud.

Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend?

Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.

Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs?

Lyle Lanley: You'll be given cushy jobs.

Abe: Were you sent here by the devil?

Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I'm on the level.

Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can.

Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man.

I swear it's Springfield's only choice...
Throw up your hands and raise your voice!

All: Monorail!

Lyle Lanley: What's it called?

All: Monorail!

Lyle Lanley: Once again...

All: Monorail!

Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken...

Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken!

All: Monorail!

[big finish]


Two speeches

The President gave two speeches last night, and they were both well done. (Again, why don’t we just elect the speech writers?)

At the beginning Obama did the classic Clinton, “I feel your pain,” routine.

Followed by his list of programs and enhancements, all of which cost money we don’t have. The list includes:
· New small business loans
· Small business tax credit
· No capital gains tax on small business development
· Tax incentives on plants and equipment
· Infrastructure investment
· Clean energy facilities
· Energy rebates
· Increase taxes to companies with overseas employees
· Tax breaks for US job creation
· Banking reform – inform bank customers
· Research funding
· Nuclear power plants
· Offshore drilling
· Biofuels
· Clean coal
· Climate change laws
· Increase exports
· More trade deals
· School reform
· Government college loan
· Tuition tax credits
· More Pell grants
· Limit repayment of school loans 10% 10 years
· Double child care credit
· IRAs for all
· More home refinancing
· Health care reform
· Foreign aid for AIDS
· Bioterror defense
· Civil rights prosecution
· Immigration enforcement

Then he gives his second speech, about America losing confidence in its institutions. He says the solution is to stop playing politics and pick up the cause of the Obama agenda. It was a poignant plea, filled with hopium, not from his own words, but from letters he has received.

It was rather out of place with the first part, where he blames Bush and chides the Republicans for standing in his way.

We need health care reform, one that will allow the president some bipolar medication.

Does he really think more federal programs (like his wish list above) will be offset by his $20 billion savings as a result of freezing a few budget lines?
The Republicans are right to be “The party of whoa!”

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

The Crash of 2009

Remedial action report tonight at 8:00 Central Time.

Quarity Plobrems

Japan, Inc. hates three things:
1) Defects
2) Going to court
3) Bad press

And Toyota has all three these days.

Frankly, they deserve it. I've never understood the problem with Happy Meal toys. How many times have fast food places recalled those toys? There have been dozens of them over the years. You would think they would know how to avoid the recalls after...say...the FIRST time you have a problem.

Toyota is in the same boat. They had the gas pedal hanging up on the floor mat problem and finally owned up to it in September.

It turns out that the fix created problems of its own.

The flaw is so bad that they halted sales and production. (I'm guessing that the flaw isn't all that bad, but it puts Toyota in a tough legal position. If someone were to get hurt or killed with the reworked design, there isn't anywhere Toyota could hide.)

And just to add an element of Nanny-ism and upset the libertarians, Toyota is also creating a software fix. If you hit the brake, it automatically overrides the accelerator. (Sorry kids, no more drag racing with the Camry.)

A history of the problem in pictures.....
Original flaw, recalled in October of last year:
Original solution by Toyota was to wrap the feet of American drivers:

Just kidding!

The new pedal with plenty of space, even if the floor mat slides up.

This looks like a pretty good fix. I wonder what's wrong.

Whatever it is, your special order Avalon arrived just in time for your wife's birthday...but you can't have it.

Monday, January 25, 2010

Monday Quiz

Which world figure has attempted to claim credit in order to appear relevant:
A) Osama binLaden, for the crotch bomber incident on Christmas.
B) Barack Obama, for Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts.
C) Both.
D) Neither.

You go, Tony!

Tony Cochran creates the Agnes cartoon each day. Usually it is about the trials of a little girl who does weird things in order to be relevant.

But lately Tony's found a voice. Take a look:

Speaking of electric toothbrushes, here's a news item that doesn't fit anywhere else:
Elgin Courier News 1/24/2010
• Battered with vibrating toothbrush: Fredrick Osbourne, 44, of 1141 Chippewa Circle, Carpentersville, was arrested Thursday on two counts of misdemeanor domestic battery after he allegedly assaulted a woman he knows by placing his hands on her butt and accosting her with a vibrating toothbrush, a police report said. Osbourne's bail was set at $10,000. He is to appear in court Jan. 29.

Plouffe the Magic Dragon

Here comes more fluff to fill the void of leadership. David Plouffe has been called back to the White House to engineer the midterm elections, put them in "lockstep" (Obama's term) with the national party.

The miracle man for the 2006 midterm was none other than Rahm Emanuel, though it appears he just moved DNC money around to do it. Plouffe has to be more creative. He wrote the Obama script and after losses in November, followed by the Martha mess in Boston, he's called upon to do it again.

Campaigning is far different than actually doing it, as Obama has quickly learned. In a campaign you start with a theme, a slogan. Hope, change, world peace, puppies, daisies...

Then you put out great platitudes like, "Come the revolution everyone will have free health care at the Mayo Clinic." Everyone cheers, especially the people in the cities who pay no taxes because they have never worked.

Only fools publish lengthy white papers detailing how the program works. The more detail you give in a campaign, the more ammunition you are giving your opponent to attack you.

Stay positive, stay vague, raise your arms a lot.

To illustrate, one of Obama's big mistakes as a candidate was to talk about taxing coal mines until they can't afford to do business any more. The better approach would be to talk about clean air and clean water for future generations and leave out the nasty details.

Then comes the inauguration. At that point the details must emerge. How shall we pay for it? Who will bear the enforcement burden? When will it take effect? What must be do without in order to have this great society?

About all you can do is fend off the attackers. After all, they are right to ask such questions. Call them tea baggers. Call them "The party of no." But the details must come out.

Once you are done with the name calling, the problems in the details still exist.

Obama has a particularly sticky problem; censorship.
Candidate Obama would exclude reporters from the entourage simply because he didn't like what they wrote.

Obama snubs Fox News because they oppose his policies.

Obama steers the NEA to give grant money to liberal artists who create pro-Obama projects.

Obama seeks to control the Internet, insisting that every right-leaning blog be countered with one from the left.

Obama sets up a snitching process to alert the White House when anyone says something bad about Obamacare.

Obama looks for ways to create campaign funding rules that benefit democrats.

Obama holds secret meetings.

Obama withholds terrorist reports.

In the process he has only appeared petty and foolish...and a bit devious.

Plouffe must take advantage of the huge power vacuum in the United States (both parties) and fill it with meaningful policy...or at least more palatable Pablum.

And he must do it without an unbridled ACORN/SEIU. And increasingly the media is asking tough questions. And he must face a new foe called the tea party movement.

Hope and change won't do it this time. Nor will underdoggery.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Whole Again

Finally, the healing begins in the Obama administration.

We’ve all known that Valerie Jarrett is the other half of Obama’s brain.

Now we learn that the brains of the Obama campaign have returned to the White House in the form of David Plouffe.

David + Valerie = One President.

The bad news is that David runs campaigns. And as I’ve pointed out before, Obama’s great at campaigning but lousy when it comes to governing.

But, perhaps Plouffe can fix the logo.
As for Valerie, she is pushing the same slop Axelrod has been selling (without many buyers). According to Jarrett, America’s standing in the world has been repaired by Obama.

Really? According to who? Did anyone in the White House think about that statement before they sent her out on the Sunday news circuit?

Here are a few blemishes on our strong image.
North Korea, Iran, Israel, Czech Republic, Poland, Somalia, Yemen, Tibet, India, Great Britain, Afghanistan…

AXELROD on April 19, 2009: "Well, for one thing, to stop this sort of rampant and tasteless anti-Americanism that we've seen over the last eight years, and try and work cooperatively with us. And the hope is, is that that's what will come from this.

"But understand what's happening, Harry, and not just with Venezuela but with countries around the world. I think this president has engaged the people of the world, the constituencies of these leaders, and the leaders are now responding. Easy anti-Americanism is no longer a great political tactic in their countries, and I think that's one of the early accomplishments of this presidency."

JARRETT on January 24, 2010: “I think what we've seen is a dramatic difference in terms of how the United States is perceived around the world.”

Is it just me, or do you think hearing such talk all day long at the White House is a bad thing for Obama? It does explain a few things about how his agenda is going these days. The man is surrounded by toadies and as a result is clueless when it comes to America.

But now Plouffe and Jarrett can join forces and add a full wit to the administration.

Friday, January 22, 2010

Good News from the House

HR 1026
The "BRIDGE" resolution
Two names for a new idea from members of the House.

Here are the three main points (not 2,000 pages...yet)
1- Make E-Verify Mandatory and hold the employer AND employee accountable for fraudulent employment documents.
2- Secure the boarder.
3- Reject amnesty for those who are here illegally.

This is an important move right now because many politicians aren't talking about it. They still fear Latino backlash, which means they are avoiding the issue.

The Tea Party movement is solid on the issue within the ranks, but the politicians who are joining the parade are timid to talk about it. That needs to change.

I'm trying to get a straight answer from a gubernatorial candidate in Illinois. He's a great candidate named Adam Andrzejewski (only slightly harder than Blagojevich).

I've e-mailed his campaign twice, asking what Adam would do about illegal aliens in Illinois. No one has responded. Nothing on his website about it. For me, it's a matter of courage and integrity to take a stand.

On the other hand, there is a House candidate named Joe Walsh. He mentions it in his radio ad. He wants mandatory E-Verify because it is right for our country. Sadly, I can't vote for Walsh. Wrong district.

So, take courage politicians. Speak up on the immigration issue. Or risk being bundled with the timid. Not exactly a leadership trait.

Here are the details about BRIDGE:
January 21, 2010 2:15 PM

Washington, DC—Today a bipartisan group led by freshman Members of Congress introduced a resolution seeking to bridge the political divide between parties on the issue of immigration by outlining some of the key principles that should guide immigration reform. Representatives Chaffetz (R-UT), Kratovil (D-MD), Hunter (R-CA), and Nye (D-VA) were joined by 18 of their colleagues on H. Res. 1026 the Bipartisan Reform of Immigration through Defining Good Enforcement (“BRIDGE”) Resolution.

The BRIDGE Resolution reaffirms that the continued peace, prosperity, liberty, and national security of the United States depend upon effective immigration enforcement policies which both welcome lawful immigrants and also prevent individuals from entering or remaining in the U.S. illegally.

Specifically, the resolution states that Congress should:
· make E-Verify mandatory for all employers, and hold employees accountable as well;
· provide sufficient border infrastructure and manpower to secure and control our borders; and,
· reject amnesty and any legal status which pardons those here in violation of our laws.

“Our government has a duty and responsibility to make our first immigration priority the enforcement of existing laws by ensuring that illegal behavior is punished, not rewarded,” said Rep. Chaffetz. “Any discussion of comprehensive immigration reform must begin with a renewed commitment to enforce our immigration laws. We need to remove the incentives that encourage illegal behavior if we expect to get immigration under control.”

“We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. The immigration reform debate must start with both an acknowledgement of the historical and contemporary importance of immigration to our nation and a renewed commitment to the rule of law,” said Rep. Kratovil. “This resolution calls for Congress to take a common sense approach to immigration reform: enforcing the rules already on the books, punishing those who knowingly choose to violate them, and opposing any plans that reward or incentivize illegal behavior at the expense of those who are trying to play by the rules.”

“Our national and economic security continues to be undermined by our porous borders and the inconsistent enforcement of existing immigration laws,” said Rep. Hunter. “The immigration reform debate must not be dictated by misguided calls for open borders or amnesty. The American people expect security to be a priority and immigration laws to be thoroughly enforced in our communities and the workplace. This resolution reiterates these principles, which should be the basis for immigration reform.”

Complete list of original cosponsors:
Chaffetz, J. (UT-03) - sponsor
Kratovil, F. (MD-01)
Hunter, D. (CA-52)
Nye, G. (VA-02)
Lummis, C. (WY-At large)
Fleming, J. (LA-04)
Coffman, M. (CO-06)
McClintock, T. (CA-04)
Posey, B. (FL-15)
Roe, P. (TN-01)
Harper, G. (MS-03)
Jenkins, L. (KS-02)
Barrow, J. (GA-12)
Bright, B. (AL-02)
Luetkemeyer, B. (MO-09)
Olson, P. (TX-22)
Taylor, G. (MS-04)
Murphy, P. (PA-08)
McIntyre, M. (NC-07)
Kagen, S. (WI-08)
Shuler, H. (NC-11)
Childers, T. (MS-01)


Thursday, January 21, 2010

Should we? Can we? How?

It seems to me that much of the disconnect between Americans and their politicians can be summed up in a discussion about public policy “reform.” Every discussion ought to include open and frank debate in Congress, including these three questions: Should we? Can we? How?

Should we? This is all about fundamentals. It calls into question the Constitution. It examines the role of government, and the size of government.

Obama can’t see this part of the argument. Instead, he sees himself catching flak because his agenda isn’t progressive enough for the tastes of his more liberal friends. Examples: Afghanistan, climate change and the public option.

He gives little attention to conservatives who really want this question answered. He’s taken to marginalizing them as “tea baggers” when in fact the “Should we?” put Scott Brown in the Senate on Tuesday.

Next comes Can we? The term “government worker” has become an oxymoron. The federal government has the worst reputation of all. Can we do it? Can we carry out a new program effectively and efficiently? Past history says we can’t. Be it Homeland Security, the Office of Education or Health and Human Services there are reams of examples of waste, fraud and failure.

Lastly comes the How? How do we create the legislation required to fix the problem? Obama spends all his time and energy on How. And that question alone calls to bear fierce debate within the democratic party.

I submit that before the administration can advance any issue it needs to examine “Should we? and “Can we?” to the satisfaction of the majority of the voters. When surveys reveal that health care costs are of concern to Americans, the politicians run off with that little slice of data without really listening to the problem. Like Rahm Emanuel said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." He goes on to explain that it is an opportunity to impose your agenda and do things you thought you couldn’t do before.

Obama has clearly been opportunistic, but he has failed to consider the “Should we?” part of the equation.

Here are a couple of prime examples.

Cap-and Trade-
Should we really impose stricter emission standards? Should we really kill the coal industry in this country? Should we tax our few remaining manufacturing operations to the brink of extinction while the nations supplying our goods scoff at pollution concerns? Should we do this based on suspect data?

Can we administer this carbon credits thing? Ample cases exist where politicians and their families are benefiting as middlemen. Loopholes and unintended consequences abound. Cash for Clunkers is just one such example.

Health Care-
Should the government be involved to a greater extent than they already are in the medical decisions of Americans? Do we want national health insurance or universal health insurance or socialized medicine? Obama has changed the syntax to skirt the philosophical debate, but it doesn’t change the basic question. Do we want socialized medicine in the United States?

Here’s a “Can we?” with a long history of fraud and inefficiency. Strangely, Obama doesn’t deny those charges. Why would we want a massive new federal program designed to regulate 1/6 of the economy when Medicare, Medicaid, and EMTALA have been such disasters? What makes any of us think this program will somehow transform federal bureaucracies into well-oiled machines?

These enormous bills are fraught with loopholes and future court cases that will change the intent in a heartbeat.

Should we increase the number of immigrants into the United States? That is the key question. Immigration reform advocates talk of streamlining the immigration process and ramping up family unification. We are already issuing a million green cards a year? Is there a new limit?

Truth be told, the quota is still at 250,000 per year, but congress has winked at that number and created all sorts of special programs that function outside the quotas.

The real “Should we?” is this: Should we allow every foreigner to come to the United States based on his desire to live here?

And of course amnesty, another syntax problem, is a question Washington will not even ask.

The “Can we?” of immigration enforcement is a pathetic litany of failure. Commissions have made recommendations since 1981, yet we have not been able to control our borders, our visas or our work permits.

Even the deaths of 3,000 people carried live on television have failed to motivate our government to fix the problem.

It would be difficult to find a more pertinent example of the answer, “We cannot.”

How's that again?

From the Obama bunker comes an explanation by the president to George Stephanopoulos. Here's what happened in Massachusetts:

"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.

"People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." ~ Barack Obama, January 20, 2010

So...people voted for Brown because they were mad at Bush? It was voter discontent. It wasn't Obama hijacking our freedom with healthcare reform and cap-and-trade.

It was George W Bush all along.


Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Year Two

Just in case Obama wants any advice…

1) Fire Rahm Emanuel. He’s far too volatile. And you don’t need a Chief-of-Staff telling you, “You’re the President. You can do whatever you want.”

2) Fire David Axelrod. David can win you elections, but he knows nothing about governance.

3) Fire Valerie Jarrett. She’s like comfort food to you, but she’s not an advisor who will tell you what you need to hear.

4) Put Joe Biden on The Hill and keep an eye on him. He’s nowhere as good as Lyndon was for JFK, but he’ll have to do.

5) Fire Desiree Rogers. Like 1, 2, and 3, Desiree is a sign of Carteritis. You need savvy beltway operatives to work the street for you, not Chicago Machine hacks.

6) Remember the old saying, “Never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel”? Well, there’s a new one. “Never throw a blogger to the ground.”

7) Learn to communicate with Fox News. Their ratings are really quite high.

8) A “Date Certain” in Afghanistan was a bad idea. Don’t ever go there again.

9) Learn to admit when you are wrong and never hesitate to apologize.

10) Gibbs needs information and permission to share it. Giving him deniability isn’t fair to him or the nation. He looks like a fool. Just as you do not want to be worse than Jimmy Carter, Gibbs doesn’t want to be another Scott McClellan.

11) Your crisis management stinks! For example, if you dissect the crotch bomber fiasco you will see mixed messages from Napolitano, yourself, and Brennan that required significant backpedaling for ten days.

12) Jimmy Carter was blinded by human rights. Don’t be fooled into thinking that terrorists appreciate the mercy of the American justice system. Nor do Americans find it amusing that you are trying terrorists in our courts. You will rue the day you let Holder talk you into it.

13) One cannot govern by obeying the polls, but disregarding them is just as foolhardy. You clearly want to take America somewhere it does not want to go when it comes to health care reform and cap-and-trade.

14) There may be something to this Tea Party thing. After all, they filled the Mall. You need to find a better response to them than sending out people to call them homophobes, racists, tea baggers, birthers and rightwing whackjobs. The more you try to marginalize them through name-calling, the stronger they become.

15) Enough already with your theological affirmative action. It is OK to say the words, “Islamic extremist” now and then if the situation warrants it.

16) You cannot remain Mr. Secrets. Practice openness and transparency. You’d be surprised at the trust you receive in return.

17) Your shot across the bow to companies that hire illegal aliens was a good first move. The time has come to call your bets. Very public fines and lawsuits need to follow. Don’t be afraid to deport illegal aliens as well. A show of deterrence is required.

18) Call a truce in your war on the wealthy. We could use the jobs.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Scott Brown Wins

Great news from Massachusetts. Scott Brown won the special election for the Senate seat.

Was it a referendum on Obamacare?

Was it a message to Obama that his ultra-liberal agenda has gone too far?

Or was Martha just a weak candidate who got in trouble and waited too long to sound the alarm?

Each will have his own answer to those questions.

Watch for:
~Challenges to the election results.
~Foot-dragging on the canvas and certification.
~Procedural games by Harry Reid to push through Obamacare before the 27th so Obama can brag at the state of the union broadcast.

Congratulations to Brown for running a strong campaign.

Missing-The Democrats

The democrats used to be the party of the working man. You wouldn't know it. Obama was making fun of Scott Brown campaigning in his old pick-up truck.

I couldn't help but think of another Brown, Jerry Brown of California. Politically he was (and is) a big mistake. But his signature was an old sedan rather than a limo with a chauffeur. I guess that role has been reversed.

Take a look at the Scott Brown rally held on Sunday. He hosted athletes rather than politicians. Here are a bunch of people in t-shirts (tails out) cheering on their candidate.

The introductions aren't scripted. There's a band playing in the background.

If you didn't know, you'd think Brown was the democrat and Coakley the republican.

No wonder Obama is calling for a more populist feel among democrats.

Gee, when throwing epithets around, like "tea bagger," "birther," "homophobe" and "racist" don't seem to be working...maybe it's time to rework the message. Eh, Mr. President?

The Black Pot Award

The Black Pot Award for Absurd Hypocrisy goes to President Obama for the remark he made Sunday about Republican Candidate Scott Brown.

"Martha's opponent already is walking in lockstep with Washington Republicans."

Obama actually said this with a straight face as he personally stumped for her in order to save his democrat agenda.

After the parade of democrats around the country rushing to her aid.

After millions of DNC dollars have been dumped into her campaign.

After Obama sends strategists to Boston to help her.

And Obama is saying Scott Brown is in "lockstep" with the national party.

Wow, how dumb does he think we are?

Marsha' Martha's endorsements

Today's election day in Massachusetts. As the dems are wont to call it, "To fill Ted Kennedy's seat in the Senate." And they continue to call it that even after being told that it sounds rather un-American. But they cling to the dynasty.

So, who from the Kennedy family steps forward to give the blessing to Martha Coakley?

Well, there's Patrick Kennedy. He's a fair representative of the Kennedy values, carrying on Teddy's moral standard when it comes to addictions. He's not exactly like Ted; he prefers cocaine and Oxycontin.

Patrick's most recent rehab tune-up was just last year. (I think that is #3 for him. Smooth move, voters of Rhode Island.)

He's had his troubles with women as well, but at least he hasn't ever had a wife to use as a doormat.

The Catholic Church will not allow Patrick to take communion. He says it is because of his pro-abortion stand.

Then there's Vicki herself; Teddy's second wife. I guess I'd question her judgment about candidates, knowing she married Teddy with a full understanding of his infidelity and alcoholism. She may have been 22 years younger, be she wasn't a kid at the time.

Nice endorsements.

Then there's that great patriot, John Kerry. He likes Martha as well.

Then again, what do voters know (or care) about the political figures of our day? What difference does this make to an ACORN fanatic? Or an SEIU stooge who is paid to campaign for Martha?

And what difference does it make to the 118,000 Boston voters who reside in cemeteries?

Monday, January 18, 2010

Is the Secret Service Mad at Obama?

Watch this video of a heckler during Obama's stump for Martha Coakley in Boston last night.

I'll supply the fantasy audio here, with references to the time on the video:
0:25 Larry- "Maybe we can mosh pit him out of here."
Curly- "Soitenly. I'll get on the other side of him."
0:35 Obama- "We're doin' OK."
0:54 Moe- "Here. I'll get in front of him. Now, everyone to the LEFT. 1-2-3."
Larry- "This ain't working. We've all got to move the same way."
1:07 Shemp- "Hey, why don't you take the sign from him?"
Curly- "Good idea. Hey sir, can I borrow your poster?"
1:10 Obama- "We're doin' fine."
1:22 Moe- "Hey guys. Look at this. If you grab his arm and hold on you can pull him."
Shemp- "Like this?"
Moe- "Sort of. But you have to make a fist."
1:40 Larry- "We gotta remember this. It works like a charm."
I'll bet they were wishing Michael Meehan, Obama's appointment for the Broadcast Board of Governors, were on duty last night. He knows how to handle anyone who disagrees with the democrats.
Seriously, by my count it took one cop in uniform (the local scapegoat) and six Secret Service agents over a minute and a half to take out one heckler.
Do they hate BHO because he threw them under the bus over the state dinner? Or does he have some special rules of engagement for the SS?
Whatever the reason, it wasn't very impressive.

Softballs and Soft Targets

First the softball. Haiti relief. All Obama has to do is commit our resources and send the Clintons to the tarmac at Port-au-Prince and he makes out like a bandit.

I mean, seriously; who is going to criticize him for sending help? And the few that do will be eaten alive by the rest of the country. Obama can let someone else fight that battle and remain above the fray.

And we all know Obama could use a win right now.

Now, the soft target. Obama does a cameo for Martha Coakley in Boston.
Venue: Cabot Center (NU campus)
Audience: 1,500. Most high school gyms will hold that many. Actually, the capacity of Cabot is 2,500 but they said attendance was 1,500. I'll spot them the extra 1,000 as a layout problem.

Then again, they claim another 2,500 attended at remote locations with video feed.

But where is the man who packed 2,000,000 in Grant Park? Or 20,000+ in Germany? Where's the rock star draw power?

After all, the list below of indoor venues in Boston indicate that much larger facilities were available.

Area's Largest Sports Facilities
(ranked by maximum seating capacity)

Fleet Center 18,624
Worcester Centrum Centre 14,800
Sylvio Conte Forum 8,500
Paul Tsongas Arena 6,500 (Ooh! Named for a Democrat.)
Matthews Arena 6,000 (also an NU facility)
Reggie Lewis Athletic Center 5,000
Walter Brown Arena 3,806
Hart Center 3,600
Clark Athletic Center 3,500
Cabot Center 2,500

Cabot Center was clearly a soft target. Add 1,500 college students making noise and you've got a nice "sixth man" for the photo op.

But it's best not to call twenty-somethings an Obama shoe-in. This graphic shows the mindset of Harvard students in November of last year:

Even in a small hall with rabid admirers Obama seemed off his game. Maybe someone finally told him things are not going well for his administration. The "unprecedented" president is looking strangely mortal at the moment.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Cue the disgruntled family

Don’t they look angry? Disgusted? Sad? In motion they are shaking their heads and looking at one another with puzzled looks.

Why would Republican Scott Brown be so greedy and insensitive? Why would he boast that he would derail the Obama agenda if he replaced Teddy Kennedy in the US Senate?

Well, this family’s disgruntling(?) knows no bounds. They are also disgusted that Illinois Governor Pat Quinn would even think of raising taxes by 50%.

Does this fine family own homes in Illinois and Massachusetts? And are they always that angry looking?

Dan Hynes ad:

Martha Coakley ad:

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Truth from the lips of a politician

This is Martha Coakley, AG of Massachusetts, and democrat candidate for the special election next week to replace Teddy Kennedy:
Her statement was, "We're done here." And every indication is that she is indeed "done" when it comes to the election next week.
First she says that there aren't any terrorists left in Afghanistan. Then she has a democrat handler knock a reporter to the ground for asking about the remark.
The reporter got back on his feet and chased her down the street to ask about health care subsidizing her fundraiser, and instead of answering the question, she replies, "We're done here."
Below is a request I received from my pal Dick Durbin. (I participated in one of his surveys on-line and now I am a supporter despite my efforts to get my name removed.)
Durbin is sending out an all-call for money for Coakley's campaign.
Now, Dick hasn't said boo about candidates for the Burris seat in Illinois, but he's all hopped up about one in Massachusetts.

And other high profile dems are doing the same.

Do you think they're worried that "We're done here."?

Obama confronts the conflict

We all wondered if Obama has what it takes to run a country. After all, what experience did he have?

Wonder no more. Obama is hard at it; managing the conflict. The scheduling conflict.

You see, there is the first episode of Lost. And American Idol. And the Super Bowl.

A rock star can’t just plop the State of the Union Address just anywhere, you know. People would be upset.

(Whatever happened to the adoring millions who walked miles on their knees to sit at his feet in Grant Park? Well, that was November. These are first episodes.)

It wouldn’t do for THIS president to have low Nielsen ratings, now would it?

Then there is the timing. Would it be good or bad to speak before the special election in Teddy’s back yard? Would Obama’s speech improve or worsen Democrat chances in the primary?

Oooh, what about this? Let’s pass Obamacare first, then step up and declare myself the next FDR. Yes, let’s do that.

Watch out, Mr. President. What will you do if one of your Democrats stands up and shouts, “You lied!” because you left out the public option?

Now that would get you some ratings.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Finding a suitable victim

As a prelude to Amnesty 2010 the left needs to find a victim, a poster child.

Logic exposes the likes of Elvira Arellano as an ID thief. The fact that she was caught twice using a fake Social Security number and ordered deported after hearings and appeals makes it hard for most folks to have much sympathy for her.

Besides, she’s made a comfortable life for herself and Saulito back in Mexico. Last we heard Elvira was running for Mexico’s Congress as a PRD candidate, ultra-liberal party of course!

And Flor Crisostomo (who replaced Elvira as martyr-in-residence of the Chicago church) isn’t much of a poster child. First, no one paid much attention to here. And second, she abandoned her children a decade ago when she came to the United States. Not much “family unification” mileage there.

So, who is the lucky face of Amnesty 2010? A little boy with curly brown hair and dark eyes; old enough to memorize a couple of sentences and deliver them in clear English, thanks to the bilingual education we provided him at no charge.

So the latest push for immigration reform comes from Chicago ministers who have chosen to hoist up a little boy about ten years old and get him to repeat for the camera, “This isn’t America.” Below this scene is a graphic explaining that his father has been deported.

Well, son, go ask your father.

Ask him why he thought the immigration laws of the United States didn’t apply to him?

Ask him why he would even think of bringing you into the world, knowing his precarious status?

Ask him how he got a job? Did he buy a fake Social Security card or was he always paid in cash?

And we should ask ourselves some questions as well.

Why did the Supreme Court erroneously rule that children of illegal aliens are U. S. citizens? And why hasn’t that gross misinterpretation been corrected? What sense does it make to tear families apart based on precedence?

And why does the Supreme Court continue to encourage illegal aliens by ruling that it isn’t aggravated identity theft unless you personally know the person whose identity you stole?

Testing racial equality at the White House

Here is the burning question?

Will WASPs who are Beltway Socialites get the same treatment as a black DC party planner with a Hispanic name?

Here's AG Eric Holder on the scene at the state dinner crashed by Carlos Allen. Allen does not appear to be in custody.

And Carlos actually got to stay for dinner.

I'd be careful about his story, though. He's got a conscience like Bill Clinton. First Carlos denied being there. Then a video was produced proving that he was. The new story is that he was invited, yet no one at the White House seems to corroborate that story.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Culture quiz

I know it's wrong to pop a quiz on Monday, but the news is fresh.
Who said, "I was born a poor black child."
a. Obama
b. Rod Blagojevich
c. Harry Reid
d. Steve Martin

Right, Steve Martin in the movie, The Jerk.

Now, who said, "I'm blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes."
a. Obama
b. Rod Blagojevich
c. Harry Reid
d. Steve Martin

Right again. Blago himself. Only it wasn't a line in a movie.

No doubt there is unlimited room in the hearts of liberals to forgive their own, so this one shouldn't be a problem.

It all goes to show that political correctness is in the eye of the beholder.

Saturday, January 9, 2010

It worked for Obama

Pat Quinn took over as governor when Blagojevich was ousted in disgrace. And the populist Quinn quickly became the same-old-tired-Democrat hack. He wants to raise the state income tax from 3% to 4.5%.

He’s done nothing about the ethics problem except fire Blago’s cronies. And he’s got some strong opposition on Groundhog Day. (Come to think of it, there is poetic justice that the primary is on February 2nd. Illinois citizens feel like they are in a bad movie over and over again. Every day we wake up to a new scandal and a new wave of unpaid bills, all thanks to our elected officials.)

So, here’s the latest ad strategy from Quinn. Sweetness and light. Cue the piano and the violins. Quinn is shaking hands with his peeps. And in his own voiceover tells us… "We're hurting economically. Our whole country is, and we have to have confidence, optimism and faith in each other. We have a scholarship program and many, many students who were the first person in their family to go to college. It gives them the skills to get a better job. I also believe in the green economy. Energy efficiency and renewable energy. These are fundamental things that will make our state stronger economically. Its everybody in and nobody left out. The governor has to be the leader to make that happen."

Can you feel it? It just oozes with Obama’s hopium. With your magic feather this donkey can fly. It would be better if Obama would make an endorsement but he has not. (That alone should tell you something about the mess we’re in.)

Well, does Quinn have the inner city vote? Probably. Will they come out on a winter day if Obama isn’t on the ballot? There’s the real question. Stay tuned.

Here’s the video for those who haven’t seen it:

Friday, January 8, 2010

Working for the government

The Cato Institute has studied private sector vs. government jobs and come up with this report:

This is important for a number of reasons:
1) Unemployment is still in double digits.
2) States are going broke.
3) Much of the new job creation is in the public sector.
4) Unions (SEIU, NEA and AFSCME) are tight with the Obama administration and most other politicians and are protecting these rich benefit packages.

Undoing this mess will be very painful and is (sadly) beyond the capabilities of most politicians.

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Obama, the humble

I noted a new attitude of humility by President Obama in his speech today about security. And it was an overnight thing. He spoke about the same thing 24 hours earlier but it was a different Obama.

Gone was the cock-sure Obama beloved of his sheeple.

No doubt it was a calculated change; an understanding that all previous efforts to get beyond this issue with the typical spin, had failed; an understanding that the right was using this one against him.

For example, Obama had banished the phrase, “global war on terror,” used by Bush. The new term, as of March 2009 was to be, “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

But today he broke his own rule and said: “We are at war. We are at war against al Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them.”

That took a large dose of humility for Obama to put aside his own agenda and agree with the American people for a change.

And that same humility infected his staff. Just last Sunday John Brennan was telling Fox News that there wasn’t sufficient intelligence to tell us the panty bomber was going to board an airplane. Today Brennan would tell us that we failed to connect the dots and then explain to the American people the corrective actions required.

That’s nice to hear, until you realize that “connecting the dots” make up the exact mission statement of his department since the beginning. It is a bit embarrassing to fail at your core mission, don’t you think?

Additionally, Obama intimated that the terrorist problem is a Muslim problem, which was new ground for the president. Heretofore he went out of his way to avoid the connection. It is no secret that Obama reaches out to Muslims, and that outreach effort has prevented him from calling a spade a spade.

But not today. Today he talked about Muslims and hinted that the terrorists were an extremist subset of his pet project in the world.

There are flaws in his plan to be sure. We may spend billions on the new x-rated x-ray machines here in the United States, but doing so won’t do squat for the screening capabilities in the third world countries that are our real danger.

And after telling us we would be subjected to more rigorous and intrusive screenings, Obama had the nerve to say, “Here at home, we will strengthen our defenses, but we will not succumb to a siege mentality that sacrifices the open society and liberties and values that we cherish as Americans.” I’m not sure what hunkering down means to Obama, but it seems to me that a virtual strip search is succumbing to the enemy.

He’s learning. It took several foolish trial-and-error efforts on this one, but at last he’s swallowed his pride and presented a plan. Finally, some leadership.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

Stumbling over the truth

One of my favorite quotes by Churchill goes like this: “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”

I thought of that quote when I read the comments of GOP Chairman Michael Steele. He is going around promoting his new book and he says the Republican politicians “most glaringly compromised our principles."

Steele further says, “We must quickly learn our lessons, return to our principles and move on.”

Hear, hear! Well said!

But Alien Rants searched for Steele’s take on immigration reform. Sadly, it is a mishmash of doublespeak.

Back in November of 2007 Steele wrote an editorial piece in Townhall Magazine
“Let's be clear: the safety and security of Americans should not be subject to the whims of a "PC" mindset or feel good legislation. Americans are expecting thoughtful and responsible leadership that will not only clearly define the threats we face, but understand what they are in the first place.

Governor Spitzer's plan
(Driving Permits for illegal aliens) is not a cause for celebration by the left or by the right; it is just plain bad public policy. When grappling with the important issues, Americans want elected leadership to put aside partisan politics and just make the right decision. The non-partisan public outcry that has accompanied attempts by politicians to grant some form of amnesty to illegal immigrants supports this fact. The Spitzer plan is no different because for many of us, citizenship is a terrible thing to waste.”

That was Steele thinking like a voter, not a politician. But his later writings bear out the fact that he’s gone silent on amnesty, a dodge which means he’s gone over to the dark side.

He’s quick to say “secure the border,” but waffles badly when it comes to the amnesty question.

For example, he told Chris Wallace in February…

WALLACE: ... the Republicans, if you look at the last election, are a minority party.

Let's talk about how you reach out to some of the groups that may feel alienated from the Republican Party. In November, John McCain got 31 percent of the Hispanic vote. Four years ago, President Bush did 13 points better.

Does the GOP need to change its position on immigration reform, guest workers, path to citizenship, to reach out and say to Hispanics, "You have a home in the Republican Party?"

STEELE: No. Well, I think the GOP's position on immigration is very much the position of many, many Hispanics who are in this country.

WALLACE: Well, wait a minute.

STEELE: Well, hold up. Hold up.

WALLACE: Wait. Is the GOP position the position of George Bush and John McCain, which is for immigration reform, or...


WALLACE: ... or is it the position that was build the fence?

STEELE: The GOP's position is secure our borders first. Let us know and let us make sure the American people know that we've taken care of the important business of dealing with illegal immigration into this country.

You cannot begin to address the concerns of the people who are already here unless and until you have made certain that no more are coming in behind them.

WALLACE: So no change in the position of the party.

STEELE: No change in the position on the party on that.

And in October he told Jorge Ramos at Univision…
Jorge Ramos - Mr. Steele, lets talk a little bit about immigration, you've said that we need meaningful immigration reform. I want to find out exactly what you mean, what would you do for instance with the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are already here in the United States, what is your plan?

Michael Steele - Well, and that's a very good question and that becomes the jump up point for any discussion among others that we need to deal with. First, I think my first view of it is; I am sick and tired of people playing the hot politics of immigration. I am hoping the administration as we get ready to go into next year and future years bring the level head to it. I am certainly arguing for Republicans to have a level head in dealing with this issue, because it affects people's lives, weather they are here illegally or legally, it affects lives. So that is the first and foremost thing, we got to stay true to our character as a nation, we must recognize that. Number two, I think as I found with a lot of Hispanics, particularly those who have been her for several generations, they understand and respect the rule of law that is so important as a foundational principle of this country...I can sum it up for you this way, the party as I said is always the party, its been the party of assimilation and that is something that we believe in very firmly and basically what we should be saying is that there are rules that you need to get into the country, go the right door, fill out the right form, have some apple pie, hum a few bars of the star spangle banner and get to work, God bless you, and I think that that begins to set us on the right road to dealing with this issue.

And sometimes he claims to be taking the party line about it, hinting that McCain’s legalization position was about right.

Here he is in December of 2008, right after Obama won… Did you support the comprehensive immigration reform proposed during the Bush administration?

Steele: Don’t even get me started on that one. This is a classic case of looking around to find that no one’s standing with you. The short answer is, no, I did not. The right answer, I think, the administration should have come up with was border security first. And let me give you an example. If you and I are in a boat in the middle of the Chesapeake Bay, and the boat springs a leak, what’s the first thing we need to do? Stop the leak. Plug the hole. Now if we start trying to bail water out of the boat, or push it to one side of the boat, or effectively deal with the water in the boat, the boat’s still going to sink, because you haven’t addressed the core problem, which is you’ve got a hole in your boat. The same is true with immigration. The core problem is that you’ve got a hole in the fence. Plug the hole. Use technology, use manpower, use all the strategies that you need to secure the national borders of this country. And then we can talk about the 12 million people who are here illegally, what we’re going to do. I think America will be much more receptive to that conversation knowing that no more are coming in and that the hole has been closed. And then we can deal effectively with the water in the boat.

CNSNewsom: How do we deal with the 12 million who are here illegally?

Steele: Well, that’s something for the national debate. There are any number of ways that you have to deal with that. Do you want to create a pathway to citizenship? Are you talking amnesty? Ronald Reagan did amnesty. He did the first amnesty bill. A lot of people tend to forget that. In 1986, what was the problem? There was no effective strategy to deal with what? The hole in the fence. They kept coming. And 20 years later, what are we looking at? 12 million additional people, the hole has gotten bigger, and the problem hasn’t gone away. America’s response to amnesty was, ‘Not again, if you don’t fix the hole. If you don’t close down that border and make sure that no one else is getting over the fence, or under the fence, or through the fence.’ That’s what everyone sees as the problem. It’s not the individuals who are here, necessarily. It’s the ones who are still coming in, because our border is porous. Every other country protects its sovereignty, and no one cracks a peep. The United States rises up and says, ‘We too shall protect the sovereignty of this nation by protecting our borders,’ and everyone looks at us like we’re enemies of the state. Well, we’ll keep looking that way because we’re going to deal with this issue, and we’re going to effectively do what we need to do as Americans to make sure the integrity of this country, its internal integrity, is secure. And then we can talk about everything else. Everything else -- jobs, programs, employers -- all that stuff you can deal with much more effectively, because now you’re dealing with a smaller pool of folks because there are no more coming in.

What Steele doesn’t acknowledge is the most recent official GOP platform as written at the convention last year. It states: “We oppose amnesty. The rule of law suffers if government policies encourage or reward illegal activity. The American people’s rejection of en masse legalizations is especially appropriate given the federal government’s past failures to enforce the law.”

I agree that the GOP principles have been compromised. I agree with Steele’s examples like spending and global warming. But I cannot support the GOP or Michael Steele when they ignore the wishes of Republicans around the nation who agree with the official platform on the matter of strong opposition to legalizing millions of illegal aliens simply because they have survived here and not been deported yet.

Amnesty is a conservative litmus test and Steele has failed it.