Remembering good old Soviet jokes...

-Do you think it will be possible to control the population growth under the communist regime?
-It's unlikely, because the means of production will continue to be privately owned.

-Why communists cannot accept the Bible?
-Because according to Bible, initially the world was in the state of chaos, and then it was organized according to God's plan. The communist experience shows that initially there was a plan, and then the chaos took over.

-Do you what is the main advantage of the communist system?
-The communist system is capable of solving the most complicated problems which don't exist in other systems.


Before the 1980 Moscow Olympic games, the clerks were instructed to avoid telling the customers that their stores did not carry the goods.
A woman enters the store and starts talking to a clerk:
- Do you have gloves?
- Which kind? Leather? Woolen? Suede?
- Woolen, please.
- Light? Dark?
- Dark.
- Long? Short?
- Short if it is possible.
- You know what, bring us your coat, it would be easier to us to pick the gloves if we could see the coat.
- Do not trust them! -another buyer interrupts the conversation- I have brought them the toilet bowl, I have shown them my ass - and they still won't sell me the toilet-paper.


And last but not least - the joke that can used for Obama-America.
-Do you think we already live under communism, or things will still get worse?



And the very-very last couple of jokes I will reproduce in its original language, because they cannot be possibly translated. The Russians are welcome to laugh at it.

Серебристый лайнер ТУ
развалился на лету,
эта фирма еще ту
выпускает ху...у.


Говорит рязанское радио. Поступили заявки радиослушателей. Сторож совхоза имени тридцатилетия советской медицины Иван Пахомович Пупков просит передать "Интродукцию и рондо каприччиозо" Сен-Санса, "Лярго" Генделя и "Шествие на казнь" из "Фантастической сюиты" Берлиоза. Пахомыч, не пизди!

What did Obama promise the Russians?

A few days ago Obama was on the air, telling the astonished world that he had signed a new nuclear treaty with Russia. He was followed by Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates. I watched only a few minutes of their presentation and I noticed that all three were very uneasy - not a single smile on their faces. On FoxNews, someone commented that particular features were included in order to satisfy Duma, the Russian parliament.

I later checked the Russian newspapers and did not find any information on the details of the treaty. American newspapers are also unusually silent. It seems like Obama and the Russians keep the details in secret. Why?

On the Russian side, Medvedev and Putin have complete control over the country. Their party controls the Duma, and any member who votes against the wishes of this couple will have their balls cut off. And I mean it literally, not figuratively - Russia has very explicit laws against dissing the current president and his dangerous prime-minister. Just ask Khodorkovsky.

So, the only people who risk being rejected are Obama and his friends. I've found official website which gives details on the treaty. I always assume the worst about Obama, and I am rarely wrong - and in this case I have a strong feeling that somehow he found another way to screw this country. For some reason I believe the treaty should include a strong prohibition on the missile defense program. Obama's website says the following:

The Treaty does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs or current or planned United States long-range conventional strike capabilities.

Given that Obama cancelled American missile defense program (just ask Eastern Europeans about this) - I can only conclude the Obama put into writing that US will not put the missile defense in Eastern Europe, and won't develop a large scale anti-missile program including space-based defense. Essentially, Obama made the deal with weakenned Russia that Reagan rejected when negotiating with a much stronger USSR.

Any takers who disagree with this prediction?

Global Warming is dangerous...

If you can read this article without giggling - your heart is made of rock. Two environmental activists travelled all the way to Antarctica to document the effects of Global Warming on the fragile climate of the really deep South. Imagine their surprise - instead of battling hot weather caused by humans, the activists had to deal with extremely cold weather (it's Antarctica, dumbasses!) - which in the end killed them both. Ignorance kills - and it definitely kills very quickly and painfully those who think they are smarter than others.

I remember I've heard a similar story some years ago - a group of enviromental activists travelled to Antarctica (or was it the Arctics?) in order to film the devastating effects of Global Warming. Alas, the poor chaps forgot to bring any warm cloth - but they did bring the bathing suits to swim in the ocean. And, as you may imagine, they nearly froze to death and had to be evacuated by a helicopter.

Jimmy Z posted his interview with Hyphenated American

Brothers and Sisters! From now on you have the ability to hear Hyphenated American (HA) spreading right-wing propaganda on the air. Jimmy Z has posted a telephone interview with him on the internet radio talk show. Please, go to Jimmy's site, listen to HA's pontificating and leave a comment. Everyone is also kindly invited to leave feedback on my interview on this blog.

Direct link to the interview is here...

Obama keeps crapping on Israel. Does he even realize how small this country is?

I am sure my readers are now familiar with the horrible treatment that Barry Obama showed to the Prime-Minister of Israel. According to UK Telegraph:

Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family, it emerged on Thursday. The snub marked a fresh low in US-Israeli relations and appeared designed to show Mr Netanyahu how low his stock had fallen in Washington after he refused to back down in a row over Jewish construction in east Jerusalem.


… (Mr. Obama) immediately presented Mr Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands designed both to the end the feud with his administration and to build Palestinian confidence ahead of the resumption of peace talks. Key among those demands was a previously-made call to halt all new settlement construction in east Jerusalem.
When the Israeli prime minister stalled, Mr Obama rose from his seat declaring: “I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.” As he left, Mr Netanyahu was told to consider the error of his ways. “I’m still around,” Mr Obama is quoted by Israel’s Yediot Ahronot newspaper as having said. “Let me know if there is anything new.”

In other words, Obama could not force Bibi to agree to 13 unconditional demands on Israel - and the affirmative action kid stormed out of the room, hissing and cursing. My only question here - is anyone surprised? Barry is a child - a child who can read the teleprompter in a way that could impress some adults - but he is still a child. Intellectually - he never grew up. Unfortunately, he is more than a child (or less) - he is a naughty child, a child who did not have good parents, who grew up with the grandparents who adored him and fullfilled every little desire of little Barry. And now, "first time in his adult life" someone said "No" to Barry - and he is hysterical, he is breaking the toys and storms out of the room. I hope someone keeps the nuclear suitcase away from him - he may do things he will regret later.

Of course, the story did not end here. Currently, different factions inside the Obama clique are throwing insults at each other. "Zionist", "Jew Hater", "UnAmerican", "Jew Lover" are just a few things that the public is allowed to hear. Politico reports deep divisions inside the Obama groupies, and I believe this only the beginning. Dennis Ross is accused of putting Israel's interests above American interests. Dennis Ross counters with a not entirely unreasonable suggestion that Obama should pay a little bit more attention to Iran's rush to build nuclear bombs, and a little bit less attention to the fact that Jews continue to insult Moslems' sensibilities by residing in the ancient Jewish city of Jerusalem.

In addition, I cannot forget to mention a rather peculiar argument proposed by the Wright-Ayers wing in the Obama administration. Some unnamed kommissar said that dropping the issue of Jerusalem would completely undermine Obama's credibility in the Middle East. It's only fair to ask - why did Obama put himself in a position that his credibility depended on whether Israel would forbid the Jews to live in Jerusalem? How dumb was it on his part to make a big deal out of it? Hasn't he been told about the Jewish connection to the city of Jerusalem? It's like asking Moslems to give up Mecca and Medina, and tell the Pope to move Vatican to Detroit.

Another interesting argument was proposed by a left-wing anti-Zionist writer for New Yorker, David Remnick. Dave acknowledges that Israeli public is deeply distrustful of Obama administration. He also says that Israelis completely misread president Obama. Given that there is probably little distance between the mouth of a NY liberal and Obama's ears, I presume Obama took the words of David to heart and decided to come clean with the Jews and  remove all misunderstanding - just watch his treatment of Bibi Netanyahu. According to FoxNews in June 2009 "A new poll shows only 6 percent of Israeli Jews see President Barack Obama's administration as pro-Israel, while 50 percent see it as pro-Palestinian." After Obama's recent attempts to educate Israeli people about his attitude towards the "Zionist entity", it's likely that Jews will see more clearly his policies, and the number of people who see Obama as pro-Israel or who formed no opinion will drastically drop. Thanks for educating the masses, Barry.

Jimmy Z interviews Hyphenated American

A few hours ago I was interviewed by the Jimmy Z show - an internet-based radio talk program. It was an interesting experience - I haven't given any interviews lately to the media due to my very busy schedule (and the fact that media is not aware of my existence). I am quite excited that I was given the opportunity to be speaking truth to power - and I expect the world to finally see the wrongness of its ways.

The interview is supposed to come out this Monday, and I invite every one of my readers to check the Jimmy Z show and listen to my long rant (or rather a series of middle-sized rants). I felt that I was actually landing some good punches during the discussion, but this impression may be deceiving - don't forget that Jimmy Carter and his lackeys believed in their heart of hearts that they won the 1980 debate with Ronald Reagan. I am also curious how much of my Russian accent will be left on the cutting floor - I don't have too many illusions about the difficulty of understanding a flaming rant of a foreigner on the computer. In case there are any questions - I want to emphasize that Jimmy Z is a great interviewer, and all the mishaps are solely due to my undisputed status of a rank amateur.

Among many questions that I discussed with Jimmy Z (I believe I am not pre-empting the show by sharing this detail) was whether American patriots should vote for any Democrat congress-persons during the November elections. I am not sure I was clear on this topic, so let me reiterate my view.

It is my solid belief that we should vote ALL Democrats out of office - even the ones who voted against the Obamacare. Who wants to take the chances with Democrats? They voted against welfarism yesterday, we vote them back into office today, and they vote for welfarism tomorrow. There are no guarantees in politics. American citizens should follow the so-called "precautionary principle" when making a decision on their vote this November.

The best scientific illustration of the "precautionary principle" was given in the movie "Casino". Here are a few quotes that the readers may find entertaining:

Quote 1

Nicky Santoro: When it looked like they could get twenty-five years to life in prison just for skimming a casino, sick or no f*ckin' sick you knew people were going to get clipped.

Quote 2

Vinny Forlano: He won't talk. Stone is a good kid. Stand-up guy, just like his old man. That's the way I see it.
Vincent Borelli: I agree. He's solid. A f*ckin' Marine.
Americo Capelli: He's okay. He always was. Remo, what do you think?
Remo Gaggi: Look... why take a chance? At least, that's the way I feel about it.

Belief in the welfare socialism is like a virus, and it is certain that 70- 80% of the Democrat party apparatchiks have caught the bug. Do you really want to vote for someone who in all likelihood was bitten by Karl Marx? I say - waste those bustards at the voting polls in November, and let God of Elections sort them out.

A few funny pieces....

Yesterday I went to the store to pick up my wife's cold medication. After I paid for the drugs, the clerk dutifully read a long monotonic list of methods of consumption of the cold pills - and then she looked me in the eyes and said the following: "Is your wife pregnant.... at all?" Granted, I am not a medical doctor, so my views can be easily ignored - but this question puzzled me. I believe there are only two options - you are either pregnant or not pregnant - but apparently there are different grades of being pregnant in this store.



Canadian government threatens Ann Coulter with criminal prosecution - while declaring innocence of a Nazi sympathiser
Famous American writer and civil rights activist Ann Coulter recently received a bizarre letter from a "senior administrator" of the University of Ottawa - the same university that she had been invited to visit and give a speech to the students. The "senior administrator" warned her that if she dared to say anything controversial, she may face criminal prosecution by the Canadian government. More specifically, he claimed that "Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges." Of course, the actual details on what constitutes "hatred" is not clearly defined by the Canadian Free Speech Commissars. As luck (and tradition) would have it, the Commissars follow their revolutionary conscience in deciding what kind of speech they would persecute. For example, they persecuted Mark Steyn in part for the fact that he accurately quoted an Islamic cleric.

As a result of this strange letter, Ann Coulter was not able to give speech to Canadian students - the left-wing thugs surrounded the university, organized a riot and force the police to cancell her speech. This is extremely outrageous - and I hope Ann Coulter don't let it go and file charges against the Ottaw administrator for hate crime and calls to violence.

In all fairness, I must note that Canadian justice and free speech is far more diverse and multi-cultural than would appear from the passage above. A famous and respected Canadian politician David Ahenakew (who also happened to be an administrator of a native Canadian group) expressed rather peculiar thoughts about different ethnic groups. In general, David pronounced his negative views about "goddamned immigrants, East Indians, Pakistanis, Afghanis, whites and so forth" - but he saved all his aboriginal fury for the - wait for it - the Jews. According to wikipedia, "during a question-and-answer session following his lecture, Ahenakew said that Jews were a disease in Germany and that Hitler was trying to "clean up Europe" when he "fried six million of those guys." He also proclaimed that "The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war. That's why Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany, or even Europe. That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the goddamned world. And look what they're doing now, they're killing people in Arab countries." Later, the leader of Canadian aboriginals justified the slaughter of 6 million Jews as something which was necessary to protect Germany from disease. After some obvious hesitation (after all, David belongs to a "protected" ethnic group), Canadian authorities decided to prosecute him - and surprisingly their efforts were thwarted. The first conviction was over-turned "by the the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench on the grounds that the trial judge failed to properly take into account that the remarks were uttered in the midst of an angry confrontation with a reporter, and therefore may not have constituted a "willful" promotion of hatred." This is in spite of the fact that David continues to openly proclaim that the Jews started WW2 (this was David shared with Hitler and other socialist luminaries). And, as any conservative would expect, David was acquitted in the second trial because the judge did not see how David's claims were intended to incite hatred of the Jews.  


In all fairness, I must concede that I am for the freedom of speech - but if Canadian government can spend millions of dollars in attempt to prosecute civil rights activists like Mark Steyn (and eventually bankrupt the newspaper that he worked for) - why does it let the affirmative action hero David Ahenakew to publicly announce his support for the murder of 6 million Jews?

Are there any liberals on this board to solve this puzzle?

These people want to regulate your health care....

Chicago Tribune reports that Obama's Education Commissar, Arne Duncan used her position as a Chicago schools chief to make sure that children of powerful politicians are admitted to the best schools in Chicago. I am reproducing the article in full, so you could see how any welfare socialist system works.

While many Chicago parents took formal routes to land their children in the best schools, the well-connected also sought help through a shadowy appeals system created in recent years under former schools chief Arne Duncan.


Whispers have long swirled that some children get spots in the city's premier schools based on whom their parents know. But a list maintained over several years in Duncan's office and obtained by the Tribune lends further evidence to those charges. Duncan is now secretary of education under President Barack Obama.

The log is a compilation of politicians and influential business people who interceded on behalf of children during Duncan's tenure. It includes 25 aldermen, Mayor Richard Daley's office, House Speaker Michael Madigan, his daughter Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, former White House social secretary Desiree Rogers and former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun.

Non-connected parents, such as those who sought spots for their special-needs child or who were new to the city, also appear on the log. But the politically connected make up about three-quarters of those making requests in the documents obtained by the Tribune.

Often a sponsor's request was rejected. Principals responded that a student's scores were too low, or that the school was full. In other cases, the student hadn't even taken the required admissions test, and therefore could not be considered, according to the documents.

The list surfaced amid a federal probe and an internal investigation into admissions practices at the city's top high schools. Until Monday, the district had not revealed it had kept such a list.

The list was maintained by a top Duncan aide, David Pickens, currently chief of staff to the president of the Chicago Board of Education. Pickens said he created the log at Duncan's behest to track the flood of calls pouring into district offices from parents, politicians and business leaders trying to navigate the system's mysterious and maligned application process.

But Pickens acknowledged the list was kept confidential. The vast majority of parents who follow the system's school application process never knew they could appeal to Duncan's office for special consideration.

"We didn't want to advertise what we were doing because we didn't want a bunch of people calling," Pickens said.

Pickens said that principals grew tired of getting calls from influential people seeking admission for a student, and that by centralizing it, he could serve as a firewall. After getting a request, he or another staffer would look up the child's academic record. If the student met their standard, they would call the principal of the desired school.

Pickens said the calls from his office were not directives to the principals -- no one was ever told they had to accept a student. Often, students did not get any of their top choices but were placed in larger, less competitive, but still desirable schools such as Lane Technical High School.

Duncan has remained mum on the list. "We never pressured principals or told them what to do or said this person needs to be considered over this person," said Duncan spokesman Peter Cunningham. "It's just a way to manage the information."

The initials "AD" are listed 10 times as the sole person requesting help for a student, and as a co-requester about 40 times. Pickens said "AD" stood for Arne Duncan, though Duncan's involvement is unclear. Duncan's mother appears as a sponsor, as does "KD," whom Pickens identified as Karen Duncan, Arne's wife.

Competition to get into the city's premier selective enrollment schools is fierce. Every year thousands of students apply for openings at the schools, considered the crown jewels of the city's public school system. But parents have long complained the system is rigged, murky and unfair. They tell stories about friends and neighbors whose children were admitted through back channels.

Admission to selective enrollment high schools and gifted elementary centers is supposedly based on merit, while entry into the magnet schools is conducted through a randomized lottery.

For years, Chicago Public Schools officials acknowledged the admission process -- especially in the elite selective-enrollment high schools -- was flawed. Principals were letting students in outside the general application process based on a loosely defined "principal discretion" procedure.

In 2008, Duncan created a formal process where students initially denied acceptance could get in based on five criteria, including outstanding extracurricular activities or ability to overcome hardship. But even that didn't stop principals from violating the rules and enrolling students who did not fit the criteria, district officials have said.

Pickens said that every student on his list applied for principal discretion.

When new schools chief Ron Huberman replaced Duncan, he announced he would implement a series of changes to prevent people from gaming the system.

Many of the politicians named on Pickens' log acknowledged that they made calls on students' behalf because this is how the system works in Chicago. They weighed in on behalf of relatives, friends and campaign workers.

"...Whenever anybody asked me -- whether it was a relative, a distant relative, a next-door neighbor or the guy across the street -- I would write letters," said Ald. Walter Burnett Jr., 27th, who has ended the practice. "Sometimes the kids get in; sometimes they don't.

In 2008, former U.S. Sen. Braun sought help for two students, though she said Monday she does not recall placing a call to Duncan's office. Pickens said she called him, seeking help getting a student into Whitney Young Magnet High School, and he asked Principal Joyce Kenner to call the former senator back.

Braun said she called Kenner to inquire after one child's mother told her the student's application had been "lost in a computer glitch." Braun said Kenner told her: "I'll take care of it."

The child got into Whitney Young, despite a below-average admission score. The Tribune is not naming any students involved because they are minors and it is unlikely they knew about efforts being made on their behalf.

"This process is not pure, and everyone knows it," Braun said. "The process is a disaster, and quite frankly, I don't have a problem making a call. If the process were not as convoluted as it is, parents wouldn't be asking for help."

Kenner, who has testified under subpoena in the federal investigation, said the admissions problems are "old news."


"There is a new framework in place for principal discretion," she said in her e-mail response. "I think we have an opportunity to move on from this issue."


The nearly 40-page log obtained by the Tribune provides a detailed account of calls and requests coming into Duncan's office in 2006 and 2008, though it's unclear if the documents are complete for those years. The log includes detailed information about how the district intervened.

Ald. Richard Mell, 33rd, said that most of the students he sought help for were turned away. Of the seven students found in the records, two got in.

Burnett requested consideration of a student in 2008 whose test score did not get him into Whitney Young. The log suggests the principal offered the student future enrollment as a consolation and notes that Burnett "was OK with that offer."

Burnett also made requests in March 2006 on behalf of other children, including a former city employee's child. In one case, the child was enrolled "without our assistance" according to the documents. Another took the admissions test about a week before school started and is now enrolled at Skinner School, where the student sought a placement.

Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's office made a request in 2006 on behalf of a student who wanted to get into Walter Payton College Prep but the log carried this notation, "STAY AWAY FROM THIS ONE." It's unclear what happened to the student.

Desiree Rogers, who was a Peoples Gas executive when she contacted Duncan's office, sought help for one student, who did not get in. Rogers said she thought she followed the proper procedure when she wrote a letter on behalf of a student.

Michael Madigan's office said he considered his involvement a part of constituent services. Lisa Madigan's spokesperson said she supported a longtime family friend.

Daley's office also appears on the list. The logs indicate that in 2008 a mayoral staffer made inquiries on behalf of a new out-of-town Daley hire.

"We just offered our help, as you would for anyone who was moving from out of state with his family to work," said Lori Healey, Daley's then chief of staff. "But there was never a commitment to get (the hire's) kids into a 'good school' or a particular school or anything of that nature."

And if you ask yourself - why liberals support more government control - this article answers this question abundantly clear. More government power means more power to the individual corrupt bureaucrats. If Republicans take over Congress in 2010, they need to open congressional hearings on the government corruption. American people will be stunned to find out about the liberal little tricks.

Lets win one for the Gipper!

The passage of the Obamacare bill was greeted by many patriotic Americans with despair. "American dream is dead" was a refrain on too many conservative blogs. I've looked up synonyms to the word "despair" - and they all nicely describe the feeling of many Americans - "hopelessness", "anguish", "depression", "despondency". If I were to believe what I am reading - I would have to conclude that everything is lost, and there is no hope.

Before I plunge myself into the lengthy diatribe, let me first remind everyone that despair is one of the mortal sins. A truly religious person cannot despair because all is in the hands of God. As a Russian Jew, I want to tell everyone that the world did not end on March 21st, 2010 with the passing of Obamacare. America is still America, and we can and should win. Is this the first time that America finds herself on the brink of disaster?

During the Independence War, American troops were outnumbered, outclassed and outgunned by the British. American patriots were in disarray - and yet, America won. In 1812, the British troops burned the entire Washington DC including the White House (on a second thought - bad example), and the nation still persevered. 3% of American population died during the bloody Civil War - more than 1 million people - and America still got through it and became the world strongest super-power.

The United States of America fought with multiple tyrants all over the world - who were smarter, more devious and powerful than Obama - and yet, America was always victorious. If you feel like something is lost, and the battle cannot be won - do you think you would dare to look in the eyes of Texan heroes in Alamo, or the soldiers of Normandy, Bastogne and Ivo Jima - and tell them that you are their grandchildren, and one lousy affirmative action clown managed to turn you into a pussy?! I won't believe this for a second.

Of course, we can and we will win. This won't be easy, this will require one hell of a hard work - but it can be done - and therefore it will be done. Even if the Obamacare bill were written in blood of Satan - we can still repeal it. We are Americans, for God's sake, we are not French. Surrender is not what Americans are good at, now, is it?

Barack Obama chose the wrong time for his little experiment with socialism. As I have written before, liberal system is on the brink of collapse, federal, state and local spending is quickly leading the nation to bankruptcy, liberal programs are unsustainable. United States simply cannot continue to spend at current levels - and Obamacare is the last straw that will break liberalism.

If I were a hard-core leftie, I would not be worried about conservatives abolishing Obamacare - I would be even more concerned that after 2010 and 2012 elections liberals may not be able to defend Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and welfare in their current form. And I would not be too surprised if some of the "heroes" of Obamacare find themselves locked up in a federal penitentiary after the GOP win.

The economic troubles that Western World is experiencing today are only the first trembles of the ground before a 12 point earthquake. No single Western country today can sustain its welfare socialism - and drastic changes will be made one way or another. It is undeniable that the next stage will be massive inflation and further increase in unemployment - and Barack Obama will be the man held responsible for all the hardships.

I clearly remember Neal Boortz, a very astute conservative, predicting in 2005 that the universal healthcare was unavoidable. And yet, in 2010, with super-majority in the Senate and the House, Barack Obama was only able to push through a massively unpopular 2500 page bill, filled with bribery and corruption - and there still is no "public option". And this is the triumph of liberalism?! The left effectively destroyed the Democratic party for a piece of paper that Republicans can repeal in 20 seconds if they win back the Congress and the White House.

I don't want my readers to misunderstand my letter - indeed the Obamacare is a horrible document which will drastically worsen the economic situation in this country. But this is hardly the end of the war for this nation - conservatives are just warming up. The first test of how strong the Tea Party movement is will be in November 2010. This is the time when it will become clear what American people made off - can they still claim that they are the heirs of the Founding Fathers and that they still deserve to call themselves Americans - or we should start calling ourselves "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys".

Well, what do you say? Which one do you choose?

I want my country back!

It seems like the ultra-liberals have been able to bribe and coerce enough congress-scumbags to pass the Obamacare. And as I said before, there would be hell to pay for this monstrosity. Obamacare is the very definition of unlimited government - the threat of which was forewarned by the Founding Fathers more than two centuries ago. The federal government, which is up to its neck in debt and unfunded liabilities, decided to launch the biggest entitlement of all times – the medical care for all. The spending on this new entitlement will surely dwarf many if not most of Federal programs and will make the bankruptcy of federal and state governments inevitable. The time of reckoning is at hand, brothers and sisters. Obamacare is the last breath of the liberal order – and it’s time to take America back from the party of thieves and looters.

All patriots of this nation must stand together and fight back. United we will win! There is no blue or red America anymore – there are only those who believe in America the beautiful, America the free, America the shining city on the hill – and those who believe in welfare socialism and government servitude. Today, we fight not only for our personal well-being – but for the dignity and honor of this country, for the right to look into the eyes of our children and say – we defended this nation from the perils of socialism. In November 2010, we will answer the crucial questions of our times - are American people worthy of the Constitutional Republic built by the Founding Fathers - or the Great American Experiment has failed, and we should all go back to Europe, Africa and Asia? Will American people have the right to proudly say “We are Americans” – or will they forever live in infamy and indignity of the European welfare socialism?

I don't know about you, but I am certain of the answer to these questions. I am glad that the Democratic Party passed the Rubicon. From now on, there is no coming back for the liberal elites, no talks of compromise and middle-ground. Today, it is abundantly clear that either we will live in Obama's America or in America that our Founding Father envisioned. You cannot have both.

The November elections will be the most important elections in our lifetime. If you don’t vote for America in November – you don’t deserve to be called an American.

Written by a Russian immigrant who loves America and who loves freedom.

A few good lines from Althouse about Obama...

This exchange is taken from Althouse comment section - people discussing Obama's recent attempt at speechifying:

New Ham: Barack Obama should be pitied. He suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder - a recognized mental illness in the DSM-IV issued by the American Psychiatric Association.


Howard: That Barack Obama has Narcissistic Personality Disorder is beyond doubt. But that does not mean he suffers from it. More accurately speaking, he makes you suffer from it.


Here is another series:




Michael: I love the idea that Obama, the ambitious young law student, had to make a conscious choice between being a Democrat or a Republican.
In Chicago.

Nagarajan Sivakumar: Heh. I believe Obama was displaying his audacity. Daley & Co would be laughing their a** off if they listened to that speech in private.

A few notes on the health-care debate

When I listen to liberal arguments about health-care debate, I am always amazed at how illogical their arguments are. Here are a couple of examples...

Liberals want to force people to buy insurance, so that no one could get a free ride. This is their main explanation on why they intend to use the full power of the IRS against those that refuse to purchase the medical insurance. In real life, these is no need for government coercion to achieve this goal. The Federal Government can simply drop the requirement on the health care providers to serve everyone - whether we are talking about emergency rooms or hospitals. And bingo - this would cut medical costs,  increase individual liberty and promote more responsibility. But as someone said long time ago - it's no fun for liberals if people do something voluntarily - they always want to use the government coercion.

You often hear liberals whining about the general unfairness that congressmen get excellent medical insurance plans, while so many people in America have to do without any insurance coverage. Obamacare is supposed to change this inequality. Of course, this liberal argument is not logical, since it is impossible to imagine that the State can provide medical care to 300 million Americans at the level that is achieved for a few hundred very rich politicians. But more importantly - the health care bill itself openly aims to destroy high-quality medical insurance plans for non-politicians by taxing what Obama called "Cadillac insurance plans". In short, if/when Obamacare gets through Congress - no working man will be allowed to have the insurance which even approaches what the politicans have.

How stupid do liberals think we are to believe their arguments? Very stupid, if you watch carefully what Obama pushes on all of us.

Risky prediction for Rahm Emanuel

I am sure a lot of people are familiar with the Obama enforcer by the name of Rahm Emanuel. He is the muscle behind Obama's radical agenda. Quite recently though it appeared that the two had some political differences. It's been rumored that Rahm Emanuel was pushing Obama to follow more moderate policies, but he was rebuked and Obama proceeded implementing far-left ideas, and as a result Obama's popularity took a major hit. Of course, it could be just a distraction, a typical "celebrity magazine" information - but I believe there is some fire underneath the smoke.

Some time ago when I read Rahm's biography on wikipedia, I was surprised to find out that he was a member of a Modern Orthodox Judaism movement. Among other things, Modern Orthodox Judaism believes in "Zionism as a part of a divine scheme finally to result in the resettlement of the Jewish people in its homeland, bringing salvation ("Geula") to the Jewish people, and the entire world." Moreover, if someone were to question Rahm's religion beliefs - his rabbi said this about him: "Amy was one of the teachers for a class for children during the High Holidays two years ago." He added that Rahm's family is "a very involved Jewish family". Rahm's wife was not born Jewish - and in order to marry him she had to convert to Judaism - which also demonstrates the strength of Jewish belief in family. Last but not least, according to wikipedia, "In the first Gulf War, Emanuel served with the Israel Defense Forces as a civilian volunteer helping to maintain equipment."

On a more negative side, I should also quote Rahm Emanuel, demanding Israel to recognize a two-state solution in exchange for the US aid to stop Iranian nuclear program.

So, what does it all mean? It is now understood by many that Obama is openly hostile to the Jewish State of Israel - and that 20 years listening to the anti-semitic lectures of Obama's pastor (and terrorist enabler) rev.Wright decisively influenced the views of the current US president. At some point in time, there will be a riff opening between Emanuel and Obama, and when that happens, conservatives must open their arms to this wandering Jew if they want him to tell the world about Obama's corruption. If I were a republican politician, particularly a Jewish republican politician, I would try to have a secret meeting with Rahm. He may be open to switching sides - particularly when Obama's stock is down and Republicans are posed to take back the Congress. I doubt he wants to be on the bad side of Congressional Investigating Committee in 2011.

On the other side, if Rahm Emanuel decides to stick with president Obama - then I can only conclude that he is "f*cking retarded".

Party Memo to Liberals: Do Not debate the specifics of the health bill...

According to some sources, Democratic Party bosses are telling party spokesmen to avoid at all costs discussing the details of the health care bill. Here are a few passages from the memo:

We cannot emphasize enough: do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of the CBO scores and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the deficit reduction and the number of Americans covered. ... These anti-reform extremists are making a last-ditch effort to derail reform. Do not give them ground by debating details.

Second, most health staff are already aware that our health proposal does not contain a "doc fix." Some Republicans have repeated CBO's November 18 letter that says "the sustainable growth rate (SGR) mechanism governing Medicare's payments to physicians has frequently been modified ... to avoid reduction in those payments, and legislation to do so again is currently under consideration in the Congress." The inclusion of a full SGR repeal would undermine reform's budget neutrality. So, again, do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores and textual narrative. ...


As most health staff knows, Leadership and the White House are working with the AMA to rally physicians support for a full SGR repeal later this spring. However, both health and communications staff should understand we do not want that policy discussion discussed at this time, lest it complicate the last critical push to health care reform.

Powerline blog reacts with humor to the latest revelation of Democrat duplicity:

Knowing whether the healthcare bill merits support is actually easy. If the proponents of X tell you not to be concerned with the details of X, and not to be concerned about the process used to bring about X, then you should oppose X.


It doesn't matter what X is or who the proponents are. If this is what they are telling you, you would be a fool to do what they want. And everyone over the age of ten knows this.

In recent hours, Democrats came out claiming that the memos are fake. Indeed, how can anyone not trust the liberals?! Well, I suggest a simple and effective approach for our liberal brothers and sisters to prove that this memo is fake - start debating the details of the Obamacare bill. Because if they keep repeating like zombies the talking points about 30 million uninsured and deficit reduction - then surely it's obvious to anyone that memo is accurate.

What's new, pussycat? #4

Ultra-liberals are unhappy with Obamacare
By some freakish incident I was directed to an ultra-left wing website. A bunch of left-wing cry-babies were whining how all of their representatives betrayed the solemn oath to reject a healthcare bill without the government option - and were now overwhelmingly voting for Obamacare.

Honestly, I am loving the healthcare bill more and more. It has a great potential of depressing the liberals, while energizing conservatives and independents. But I am a bit repeating myself, am I not? If the Dims are stupid enough to push through this magnificent, custom-created cluster-f*ck through Congress using the Slaughter rule - we may enjoy seeing  a long-term realignment in American electorate and accelerated destruction of the liberal system in America.


Top US rating agency fears civil unrest in Europe and US
According to Moody, high debt may cause civil unrest in European countries and US. "The US rating agency said the US, the UK, Germany, France, and Spain are walking a tightrope as they try to bring public finances under control without nipping recovery in the bud. It warned of "substantial execution risk" in withdrawal of stimulus."

If I have to guess, when elected, Obama thought he had plenty of money to spend around for his liberal pet projects. In all fairness, he has already spent plenty of money - but now the creditors are demanding him to pay back, and presidency seems to be a much more troublesome job than expected. Obama is not a happy camper...


If Obamacare lost David Brooks...
During last few days, readers could enjoy watching as castrated conservative David Brooks sounded nervous about Obamacare promises and Obama's attempt to get it through Congress through the so-called Slaughter rule. According to his first article, the Obamacare bill is full of gimmicks and handouts - and does nothing to control the costs. Dave is equally devastated about the liberals using the so-called Slaughter rule in his interview. According to Brooks it is simply unbelievable that the Democrats would even dream about using it for such a high profile piece of legislation. David, David, haven't we told you in the past that Obama was not to be trusted?

If Obamacare lost David Brooks - imagine what it will do to any red-blooded real American who cares for this country! In case you are wondering, that's same Brooks that was licking Obama's balls just a year ago - making Chris Matthews appear to be a sober, reserved journalist in spite of his tingling legs.


Obama hates US allies and loves US enemies
Plenty of articles discuss a sorry state of American foreign affairs - president Obama seems to enjoy snubbing the US allies, while being extremely differential towards the US enemies. Surprisingly, even Washington Post noticed Obama's peculiar foreign policy and dared to criticize him. Things are getting bizarre if even such a citadel of liberalism as Washington Post attacks Obama from the right.

Failure to imagine the obvious

A very interesting article by Richard Fernandez psychoanalyses Obama and tries to explain president's policy to snub US allies and embrace US enemies. If I had to summarize Richard's conclusion in one word - it would be "vanity".

According to Richard, Obama is seeking glory and fame, and there is nothing glamorous in keeping the friends and allies, no reward in having good relationship with those that agree with you. On other side, there appears to be a great satisfaction in winning new friends - be it Iran, Libya or Venezuela. So, the choice for Obama is clear - sacrifice the US allies in order to gain new friends.

While the analysis is quite interesting, I believe Richard's main argument is mistaken. For some reason, he cannot imagine that Obama is in awe of fascistic dictators, that he thinks Israel is a bad country, that Britain is an imperialistic bully, while Castro and Chavez are genuinely good guys, people just like him. Why is this obvious idea so incomprehensible to clearly bright people?

For example, we know that Sean Penn is enamored with Hugo Chavez, and he believes any American who dares to criticize this Venezuela's strongman should be sent to jail. Mind you that Sean Penn is a norm in Hollywood and the liberal circles, not a rare case of insanity.

If I were to dig closer to home - I can discuss Rev.Wright, Obama's pastor of 20 years, the man who influenced Obama's political and moral views is a personal friend of infamous Libyan terrorist Muamar Qaddafi and American anti-semite Louis Farrakhan. Obama was also close friends (in fact, Obama's political career started in their house) with unrepentant terrorists (and unapologetic supporters of communism and Hugo Chavez) Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers.  And then we got Congressional Black Caucus travelling to Cuba to meet its dictator, Fidel Castro, to discuss how they can work together to aid Barack Obama. And then we got another piece of information - Obama's was best friends and supporter of PLO adviser and Israel's hater, Rashid Khalidi.

And the list goes on and on...

In all fairness - why is it so difficult to imagine that Obama actually does like many of American enemies - that he is deep down a real extremist, who shares the views of Hugo Chavez, Hamas and PLO? It's not something impossible, is it?

Interesting contradictions...

Barack Obama during his interview on FoxNews explains why Obamacare must be signed into law: "The reason that it needs to be done is not its effect on the presidency. It has to do with how it's going to affect ordinary people who right now are desperately in need of help."

According to the interviews with Democratic congresspersons, the internal message from the Obama administration is in direct contradiction to Obama's public announcements:

One caucus member told POLITICO that Obama won him over by “essentially [saying] that the fate of his presidency” hinged on this week’s health reform vote in the House. The member, who requested anonymity, likened Obama’s remarks to an earlier meeting with progressives when the president said a victory was necessary to keep him “strong” for the next three years of his term.


Another caucus member, Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.), said, “We went in there already knowing his presidency would be weakened if this thing went down, but the president clearly reinforced the impression the presidency would be damaged by a loss.”

Added Serrano: “He was subtle, but that was the underlying theme of the meeting — the importance of passing this for the health of the presidency.”

Which of the two contradictory memes is more plausible - that Obama is pushing Obamacare in order to help the prols, or because he believes its defeat would mark the defeat of his administration?

P.S. Same contradiction was noted by WSJ.

Obama says he does not care much for the rules...

Hm. So, the Chief Executive tells Fox News: “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the … rules are” when asked about his opinion on the Congress attempt to bypass the Constitution in its rush to get Obamacare into law. It's a peculiar reaction - given that Obama is such a sucker for rules when it comes to Islamic terrorists. I mean, don't law abiding American citizens deserve to be protected from the government shenanigans? Why do the Moslem terrorists have their rights protected (and more. much more), while the laws and regulations that protect America from government oppression get shafted?

Surely, dear reader, you understand that my questions are rhetorical. We all know the answers to them, don't we?

Hyphenated American votes "yes" on Obamacare

After considerable mental pain and suffering, Hyphenated American concluded that the passage of Obamacare would be in the long-term interests of America. I will applaud if the Obamacare passes - particularly if it passes  through the infamous Slaughter Rule. My readers surely would want to know the reasons for my sudden turn-around - it is obvious from my blog that I am a strong opponent of socialized medicine. In all honesty I must confess that Obamacare is a wrong idea at precisely the right time. It is beyond dispute that Obamacare will be devastating to the American healthcare - but at the same time it will most likely destroy the Democratic Party for the next 50 years - and that assuming that Democrats are lucky. Back in November 2008, when conservatives predicted doom and gloom, I believed that Obama's presidency would seriously weaken the liberals - and I am proven right with each passing day.

The Obamacare will be a fatal blow to the liberal control over this nation. And after all is said is done, the GOP should be able to dismantle not only the Obamacare - but the entire liberal system - including Social Security, Medicare, welfare and Medicaid.

A number of respected conservatives do not share my optimism. For example, a conservative luminary, Rush Limbaugh today said that he believed it would be nearly impossible to roll back the Obamacare. A very talented Mark Steyn wrote a series of articles that were stating the same - that once the Obamacare was set, it could not be dislodged. I deeply respect both of these men, but I am forced to disagree with them on this issue.

Firstly, the idea of Obamacare is about 30 years too late. Most of liberal programs (welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) are bankrupt. These programs cannot be possibly supported by the population in their current form due to an unrestricted growth of benefits and drastic change in the population structure. There are just not enough young workers to support this system. Moreover, the local, state and federal authorities accumulated massive debts, which include pensions for government workers as well as general out-of-control spending binge. In other words, the US economy simply cannot afford to support the existing liberal programs - and Obamacare will just kill the beast quicker. In short, the whole societal structure cannot sustain liberalism, and Obamacare is destined to be the last blow.

It could be argued that it is nearly impossible to cut any one given liberal programs - because of the influence of the interest groups - but the bankruptcy of the entire system will make drastic reforms inevitable. The faster the system breaks down - the fewer people will get irreversibly addicted to it, and the faster we can repair America.

The second reason was very well explained by the popular conservative blog "Powerline". Tens of millions of Americans from the Baby-Boomer generation will retire in the next decade. And this generation will see not only massive problems with Social Security - but also an unparalled worsening of healthcare for the elderly due to Obama's withdrawal of nearly half-a-trillion dollars from Medicare. Moreover, it is reported that a large percentage of doctors will retire if Obamacare is approved by Congress - which in turn will further worsen the healthcare for 90% of the population.

Imagine the attitude of self-indulgent Baby-Boomer population - unhappy with their general decline due to old age coupled with inevitable dissatisfaction with Obamacare - and you get very pissed, very numerous, very disciplined electorate on your hands. As PowerLine predicts: "If [Obamacare] passes, the Dems will own every doctor complaint out there. Moreover, the complaints will multiply, and not just because care will deteriorate as demand increases and supply decreases. They are going to multiply because the care-seeking population is about to become the Baby Boomers -- i.e., the most indulged, demanding and complaining generation in a hundred years, or maybe ever. The Dems are (apparently) fixing to take over medicine at exactly the time The Giant Complaining Horde shows up at the door."

Powerline continues with the following astute observation: "“If Obamacare passes, President Obama and the Democrats will become part of, and perhaps dominate, most of these conversations. Every excessive wait, every missed phone call, every postponed appointment will become Obama’s fault. . . . These complaints won’t be confined to the elderly. Old people complain more about their dealings with doctors primarily because they spend so much more time with them. But I’ve never met a person who likes being blown off by a doctor or sitting for 40 minutes in the waiting room, plus an extra 15 in the examining room before the doctor arrives. Nor have I ever met a person who enjoys hearing his or her aging parents complain about their medical service, especially when the complaint is justified.”

Moreover, while hundreds of millions of people will see longer wait times, higher premiums, less medical care and higher taxes, losing insurance plans they like (in spite of all the promises) - the 30 million uninsured people will not get the healthcare at the level promised by Obama. And it's very likely that abortions will be funded by the government - which will make a lot of very determined people very upset. And the emergency rooms will still be overcrowded - if not even more so. And the budget deficits will refuse to fall - in spite of all the promises.

And lets not forget the young-ones, who overwhelmingly voted for Obama. The new bill forces them to buy substantial insurance plans (that they do not need) at gun point - with explicit purpose of funding the healthcare for the middle-aged Americans. If anything, American young-ones are used to having close to zero responsibilities, while demanding society to follow their whimsical desires to "make the Earth a better place". Imagine their astonishment when they meet Obamacare - and find out that they are the ones paying the bills!

Moreover, don't forget to add a rather peculiar fact that Obamacare's benefits are delayed by about 4 years, while all the pain and suffering commence immediately. And these will be very long 4 years for the Democrats - quite enough time for republicans to take back the entire Congress and the send Barry back to community organizing in Chicago.

Lastly, if you add the chronic high unemployment, high taxes, terrorism, two wars and drastically worsened health care for most of the working class during the next years - you will get the entire country ready to throw away the old tired liberal ways and return to conservatism. The next 10 years will be absolutely critical to the success of this nation.

At some point, conservatives said that the healthcare battle would be Obama's "Waterloo". I think it looks more like Borodino. As you may remember, after Borodino, the Russian troops withdrew from the battlefield and Napoleon occupied Moscow - only to find it deserted. After a few months, his army faced starvation and he was forced to leave Moscow and retreat back to France, on the way losing tens of thousands of soldiers. France was never the same after this defeat.

If you ask me how I know all this - I will answer - I lived in the USSR through the end of communism. After a while you start recognizing the patterns.

Israel against Obamacare

According to a report from a liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Obama administration was not satisfied with insulting the state of Israel through media-outlets, and is now sending a list of demands. The list of demands is as follows:

1. Investigate the process that led to the announcement of the Ramat Shlomo construction plans in the middle of Biden's visit. The Americans seek an official response from Israel on whether this was a bureaucratic mistake or a deliberate act carried out for political reasons. Already on Saturday night, Netanyahu announced the convening of a committee to look into the issue.

2. Reverse the decision by the Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee to approve construction of 1,600 new housing units in Ramat Shlomo.

3. Make a substantial gesture toward the Palestinians enabling the renewal of peace talks. The Americans suggested that hundreds of Palestinian prisoners be released, that the Israel Defense Forces withdraw from additional areas of the West Bank and transfer them to Palestinian control, that the siege of the Gaza Strip be eased and further roadblocks in the West Bank be removed.

4. Issue an official declaration that the talks with the Palestinians, even indirect talks, will deal with all the conflict's core issues - borders, refugees, Jerusalem, security arrangements, water and settlements.


Note that Obama has not demanded anything from the open enemies of the US - Iran, Venesuela, Libya, North Korea and the like. He is also unusually silent about the actions of palestinian terror groups - Hamas and PLO. If anything, Obama was always courteous and understanding of their opposition to the American policy - if not downright apologetic about US and its assumed past indiscretions and injustices. But it's American allies - Israel, Honduras, Britain that were openly chastised by Obama. This is hardly surprising to the people who studied Obama's past close cooperation with such known antisemites as rev.Wright and Rashid Khalidi - but for many liberal Jews, Obama's uncompromising hostility to Israel is a very unwelcome surprise.

In the last few days, the patience of some major Jewish organizations wore thin, and some of them started to criticize the Messiah. Among those, was reliably liberal Anti-Defamation League, which called Obama's attacks on Israel "“gross overreaction.” The ADL National Director Abraham Foxman even proclaimed that he was “shocked and stunned” by the tone of the comments which were emanating from administration. This came after ADL graded Obama's performance a solid "F" barely a moth ago.

AIPAIC, a centrist pro-Israel group declared that Obama's hostility to Israel is "matter of serious concern." It also declared that Obama "should make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel."


So, what does it all have to do with Obamacare? I believe that Obama's reckless disregard of one of the most important US ally is partly due to his belief that American Jews will support his presidency irrespective of his position on Israel. I think that Obama in his arrogance underestimates Jewish intelligence and their love for the state of Israel, while overestimating his stronghold on the Jewish minds. His latest attack on Israel was particularly badly timed, given the fact that the Obamacare is hanging by a thread.

Any Jewish congressman who withdraws his support from the Healthcare Bill will put a lot of pain on the Obama administration. I personally believe that the ONLY way for Jewish Democrats to remind Obama that their support for the president is not unconditional is now. If the Obamacare is defeated, the president will be seriously weakened, and he will be able to re-access his dangerous policy vis-à-vis Israel. Any Jew who votes for Obamacare essentially votes for the further isolation of Israel from its ally, the United States of America.

It is well known that many regimes began to weaken once they turned against the Jews. I am not a religious man, but history indeed shows that an attack on the Jews very often leads to defeat of the formerly insurmountably strong regimes. As someone noted, the attack on the Jews is normally the last straw that breaks the neck of the camel. It is quite possible that Obama's reckless and unfair attack of Israel may be the last straw that would defeat the Obamacare.

Obama administration hates Israel - what else is new?

Following the strategy of beating up on friends and appeasing the enemies, Obama's administration is now outraged at Israel because her government allowed a few thousand Jews to move to Jerusalem, the eternal Jewish city. Hillary Clinton, the top b*tch at the Foggy bottom is "insulted" by Israel's move.  Ditto for Joe "dumb ass" Biden who said that this is "a step that undermines the trust we need right now." The only trust I can put in Biden is that he will always says something dumb - and this trust can never be undermined.

At the same time, the "moderate" PLO administration is finishing preparations to name a public square after a terrorist Dalal Mughrabi .

Just in order to put things in perspective, Dalal Mughrabi was a vicious terrorist, "who directed the Coastal Road massacre, a 1978 terrorist attack in which 38 Israeli citizens including 13 children were murdered along with an American photographer."

The following are named after, or have been named after Dalal Mughrabi in the last two years:

1- Education: Two PA Dalal Mughrabi Girls High Schools
2- Education: The Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi Computer Center
3- Education: School graduation ceremony named after Mughrabi
4- Sports: Two Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi summer camps
5- Sports: The Dalal Mughrabi Football Championship
6- Municipality: The Dalal Mughrabi Square in Al Bira, Ramallah region

According to the Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 7, 2010:

“Preparations for inauguration of Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi Square complete”
“The El-Bireh Municipality has completed construction work at the Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi Square in the Um Al-Sharait region, and has commenced preparations for its inauguration this Thursday, the anniversary of Mughrabi’s Martyrdom. The mayor, Jamal Al-Tawil, said that… this year the municipality will celebrate the inauguration of the Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi Square in order to commemorate her memory and her sacrifice as a Palestinian woman who resisted the occupation. City Council member Aida Abu-Ubeid said that the square is considered a symbol of the sacrifice of the Palestinian woman. She also noted that flowers and trees will be planted there, and that a picture of the Shahida Dalal Mughrabi will be placed at the center of the square.“

No one expects Obama, the student of Reverend "them Jews" Wright and Rashid Khalidi to actually support Israel and criticize Islamic terrorism - and Israelis know that. Which is why the best approach that Israel should use is to ignore Obama's rhetoric and instead send him a few DVDs with the speeches of Israeli founding fathers.

What's new, pussycat? #3

Obama's justice department shut down investigation of ACORN
A well-known left-wing group ACORN was openly engaged in election fraud among other things. Lucy Corelli and Joseph Borges, Republican Registrars of Voters in Stamford and Bridgeport, Connecticut, respectively, filed numerous complaints against ACORN. According to WND, "Corelli reported that on Aug. 1, 2008, her office accessed 1,200 ACORN voter registration cards from the secretary of state's office – of which, 300 cards were rejected due to "duplicates, underage, illegible and invalid addresses." She said the invalid cards "put a tremendous strain on our office staff and caused endless work hours at taxpayers' expense." Judicial Watch reports Corelli claimed the additional work caused by ACORN corruption cost $20,000."

It's worth repeating that Obama was and is very closely connected with ACORN - among many other things, he personally trained its personnal (same one that was later caught forging documents), his election campaign paid nearly a million dollars to ACORN for its "services" during 2008 presidential campaign. According to an article from 2007: "Prior to law school, Barack Obama worked as an organizer for their [ACORN] affiliates in New York and Chicago. He always has been an ACORN person -- meeting and working with them to advance their causes. Through his membership on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago and his friendship with Teresa Heinz Kerry, Obama has helped ensure that they remain funded well. Since he graduated from law school, Obama's work with ACORN and the Midwest Academy has ranged from training and fundraising, to legal representation and promoting their work."

And surely, when Obama became president, all criminal investigations against his alma mater were closed. According to WND, "The FBI and Department of Justice opened an investigation. But Judicial Watch noted that the Obama Justice Department, while acknowledging that ACORN had engaged in "questionable hiring and training practices," closed the investigation in March 2009, claiming ACORN had broken no laws."

Does it sound like ACORN is a good "NGO citizen"? Is anyone surprised that Obama is covering for them?



A liberal begs Obama to re-invent himself
Dee Dee Myers, a liberal activist, and former Clinton press-secretary looks at the slide of Obama's popularity and tells the president that there exists a simple solution to his problems - follow Clinton and try to be more of a teddy bear, and less of a cold calculating politician. Or, at least, try to appear this way to the unwashed masses. And don't make any mistake - Dee Dee is still in awe of the Annointed One. According to her, Obama is "a great listener", he possesses "Ivy League elegance" and demonstrates "effortless mastery of complex issues".

Dee Dee believes that Obama should be more of a whiner about the complexities of life (instead of just being an awesome winner of everything - just watch the economy) - even though every time he opens his mouth, he complaints how the cold unfair world forced His Majesty to deal with the most unfortunate country in the most horrible financial state.


Among may other things that Dee Dee said, this passage made me chuckle: "The campaign introduced the country to a man whose life story was both unusual — a Kenyan father and a Kansan mother, a childhood spent in Hawaii and Indonesia — and broadly shared: a single mom who worked hard and sacrificed for her children and a family that faced difficult times but never lost its faith in the future."

This passage contains a couple of very funny points. First of all, while Obama's life in Indonesia and his studies in the moslem religious school may be highly unusual for an American president - I find it less than appealing. Secondly, he grew up with his grandparents, while his mother was on a wild mission to get a graduate degree in such well-known Mecca for education as Indonesia (how many Nobel-laureates did Indonesian universities produced in the last 100 years?) - so it's not obvious what exactly she sacrificed for her son. I mean, could she be actually more self-absorbed and negligent towards little Barry?

And lastly, Obama came into political life through his life in a very anti-American surroundings - as his wife Michele said, "it's the first time I am really proud of my country" - a quote which made Hyphenated American, an immigrant from Russia quite furious.

So, in short - Dee Dee - stop the whining and get on with the program. Obama is going down, and there is nothing you can do to stop him. He is just not the right man for the job, you know. He ain't Reagan, he is Obama.


A few words about Congress
Why our Congress is so much willing to give away money to bailout failed individual humans (welfare) and whole groups of humans (corporations)? Mark Twain knows the answer: "All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity." this also explains why Congress loves handouts, wealth re-distribution and the like.


David Brooks continues to suck Obama's balls
As anyone could expect, castrated conservative David Brooks continues to provide sexual services to our president. According to Dave's latest article in the New York Slimes, Obama is horribly misunderstood by American left and the right. According to conservatives, Obama "is arrogant toward foes, condescending toward allies and runs a partisan political machine." According to liberals, Obama is "inspiring but overly intellectual leader who has trouble making up his mind and fighting for his positions... too quick to compromise and too cerebral to push things through." But according to Dave, Obama is just perfect, "he is still the most realistic and reasonable major player in Washington." And Dave also believes than any sensible observer would agree with him - or, in other words, anyone who disagrees with Obama is simply insane. Some blogs were quick to conclude that Brooks is openly asking Obama for an intern position in the White House. Are they correct? Probably.

Shocking admission from the former executive editor of the New York Slimes

Howell Raines, former NYT editor uses the pages of liberal Washington Post to express his general dissatisfaction with Fox News in general,  and Roger Ailes, chief of Fox News, in particular. His biggest complaint was that Fox refused to follow the footsteps of the Mainstream Media and become Obama's lapdog - and instead chose to be openly critical of our God-President and his policies. What once was proudly called "the highest form of patriotism" evidently became a target of scorn and derision from the NYT.

According to Howell, any criticism of the Anointed One is pure unadulterated evil, while any and all expression of love towards our God-in-Charge is traditional, honest journalism. With these standards, it's not surprising the Howell is pissed and the NYT is slowly dying.

The biggest source of Howell's irritation was Fox's public pronouncement that Obama's health care reform was unpopular among American people. Howell goes as far a calling it a "uber-lie" - while later in his article conceding that majority of Americans are against the health-care reform. How can a "uber-lie" be factually accurate is unclear - but that does not stop Howell from calling his fellow journalists to publicly lynch the wicked dissenter from the liberal media.

One of the most ironic parts of the article demands Howell's liberal friends to denounce Rupert Murdoch and proclaim "that Murdoch does not belong to our team". It's a bit unnerving to see a liberal extremist proclaim that he and his friend does not see the other side as their friends - and expect the other side to react with anything but a giggle. I am quite curious to know why would anyone smart and decent want to be in Howell's team? And I wonder why Howell is oblivious to the simple truth that Murdoch and scores of dissident journalists actually do NOT like his team, because they view his team of liberal propagandists and well-financed liars as a scourge of the nation.

And just one day later, Andrea Mitchell, a "reporter" for (P)MSNBC (same one which has its reporters reduce themselves in public paroxysms of orgasm during the Obama speeches) was in tears and begging a democratic congressperson to vote for Obamacare. She pleaded with Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) during her 1 PM show to support the health care reform: "Bottom line, what happens if you don't get health care for this president is, this is really all-or-nothing for the sense of his power, his legacy, he's invested so much in this, in this first year. You've got to get this for him."

I have a hunch that Howell Raines will not be howling against MSNBC for its liberal slant, and he won't be asking the journalists to criticize Andrea Mitchell. Any liberal volunteers to bet money against my prediction?

I believe the most shocking detail of this article was Howell's announcement at the very top of the article that he discovered within himself what he dubbed a "professional conscience". I believe his next article will shine some light on what profession is so low that even Howell has the tenecity to proclaim that he got its conscience.

New sheriff is coming to town

It becomes apparent with each passing day that GOP has an excellent opportunity to take over the House and considerably change the situation in the Senate in the 2010 elections. What should be the republican message in the coming weeks and months? I believe the most popular feeling these days is a general disgust with Washington, DC and the government establishment. The Tea Party movement is clearly on the rise, and each day that Obama is trying to push through Congress a very unpopular health care bill, the public is getting more and more upset. The republicans should not simply sit while Obama is jumping of the precipice - it's time for them to start a campaign of intimidation.

Recently, the mainstream media decided that the core problem with Obama agenda was his "professorial style". If you can believe it, media thinks that Obama is way too nice. One CNN operative recently appealed to Obama to "channel your inner Al Capone and go gangsta against your foes." But any reality-based commentator would counter this peculiar proposal with an obvious observation that Obama was never a "nice guy", and he behaved as a street hoodlum his entire first year in office, and he only got worse in his second year .

It is no accident that Obama's political style was named after the city of his political birth - Chicago - a city known for its lawlessness and corruption. Only recently, Illinois governor and president's close friend Rod Blagojevich was caught in the middle of running an open store on Obama's senatorial seat. One can only imagine what kind of corruption was prevalent in the White House during the first year of Barry's administration, when Obama and his friends controlled both chambers of Congress and the entire federal apparatus, while the media openly proclaimed that he was a god (literally!). But times are a-changing, and it is expected that in January 2011, the republicans will triumphantly move into Congress and put an end to this spectacle. And if you can believe it -  even the media is far more skeptical of the president.

It's clear that the White House has a lot of reasons to panic - since some of its closest allies may soon be forced to move to a very special housing complex - the federal penitentiary. Whatever was secret during the last two years will become very much public. But they are not the only ones that are in danger. What the Republicans must quietly whisper to the Democrat congress-persons is that any deals that "blue dogs" make now with the Obama administration in exchange for passing the health care bill will become public in 2011, and that Republicans will not shy away from using Congressional hearings to hunt down and punish anyone who broke the law in 2009-2010. Whatever Obama is offering to the Democrats will soon become worthless, and all his threats are kids' games compared to what Republicans will do to them in 2011.

And just so that the Democrats could understand the weight of these predictions - they should be reminded that the horrifying Tea Party people who shouted them down in the hot summer of 2009 will now be interrogating them in the Congressional hearings, and the Democrats will have to answer their questions under oath. If the Democrats were scared by the unruly town-halls in 2009, the amount of popular fury in summer 2010 will be far worse if they tumble before Obama's threats and vote for the health care bill. If anything, the power of the anti-corruption movement will be growing in this year, and only massive auto-da-fé of liberal politicians will satisfy the public quest for blood.

Any Democrat voting for the health care bill should realize that while it may satisfy he personal political inclinations - he will very possibly pay with his own head for this. His entire life will be analyzed by people who hate him, he will have close to zero chance of earning money in the private sector, and he will have to publicly testify under oath in front of the Congressional committee. And if he thinks that Ramh Emmanuel will keep the secret deals private - he should once and for all realize that the naked ballerina herself may be in a tad of trouble. While Ramh is known for being a tough liberal enforcer - it's far from obvious that he will hold up to a tough questioning under oath in Congress. It's also unclear how much dirt can be found on him - from his days as an executive at Freddie Mack to his short but very profitable career in finance. The same people that he cursed and kicked while he was climbing up the political ladder are now waiting for him. And who says Ramh won't switch his allegiance when his own butt is in danger? Are Chicago politicians known for their blind loyalty?

Last but not least, we should not discard the possible leaks from the FBI, military and the CIA - the three organizations which are clearly unhappy with the administration run by former communists, hippies and subversives. The amount of dirt that may come out in the next year will probably be astounding, particularly if Republicans indicate that they are willing to use all the means necessary to clean up the house.

The Tea Party Movement must get absolute guarantees from the Republican Party that it will not squander this God send opportunity to defend the country and punish the corruption so prevalent in the Democrat Party. And every Democrat must be put on notice that his every action is watched by a lot of very pissed off citizens, who will vote against liberals, and who will support the candidates that will investigate any and all possible criminal acts and any actions that have a whiff of impropriety.

As for president Obama - he may try to channel his inner Al Capone, but he better hurry because the new sheriff is arriving in town in January 2011, and he is mighty pissed.

Whass up?!

Lets start with a very funny caricature on Al Gore - the guru of Global Warming swindle. If you don't laugh your butt off when you look at it - your heart is made of stone.

Iceland Voters Set to Reject Debt Deal
NYT reports that people of Iceland are going to vote down the proposal to pay the debt of a private bank Icesave. Of course, the world community is outraged - given that some of the customers of that bank are citizens of Netherlands and United Kingdom. To make matters worse (or more comical if you wish), the Dutch and British governments have already "reimbursed" their citizens the losses in Icesave and are now awaiting the people of Iceland to pay them back. Majority of people in Iceland though do not understand why they should be held responsible for the screw up of a private bank, and the political elites are running scared.

Silja B. Omarsdottir, a political "scientist" at the University of Iceland asks a question: “Are we going to be a country that takes our obligations seriously?" This immature question is answered by Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of Parliament “We don’t believe in the socialization of private debt.” Or, if I were to use the line from an old joke - "what do you mean "our", paleface"?

Environmental lawsuits - nothing personal, strictly business
Pajamas media reports that "Activist ‘Green’ Lawyers Billing U.S. Millions in Fraudulent Attorney Fees" Who is surprised? Not me...

What's new, pussycat? #2

A few things I came across today that I believe is worthy of noting..

A liberal Democrat on Fox News praised President Obama for his conduct of the Health Care Summit. In particular he noted that Obama demonstrated how important it was to listen to other people. Que? Are we talking about same Summit and same Obama? Did he miss the fact that our Glorious Leader spoke more than all republicans combined? Does anyone really believe that Obama can talk and listen at the same time (that is listening to other people - not himself)? The art of listening requires the listener at the very least to shut up and let others speak - which is surely NOT what Obama did. The official idea of the Summit was for Obama to listen to republicans and their ideas - but the republicans got only 1/3 of the time of the Summit to present their point of view - and even then they were constantly interrupted by the One. Is this a liberal idea of listening to the other side?

White dancers win the contest - liberals cry foul. This is the funniest article I've seen in a long time. According to CNN: "On February 20, the University of Arkansas chapter of Zeta Tau Alpha, a predominantly white sorority, won the inaugural Sprite Step Off stepping competition, beating two predominantly black sororities." As can be easily predicted, this cultural enrichment and diversity did not feel good to the promoters of cultural enrichment and diversity. According to CNN: "But the results immediately sparked a firestorm within the African-American fraternal community, with many calling foul. How could a white sorority beat black sororities at our own art form? Why were they even competing in the first place? Some alleged that judges cheated, while others posited that the novelty of white women performing swayed the judges." Ahm. I guess this is exactly how a white racist feels when he learns that a black kid won the competition in violin - let alone the rodeo. As one evil Progressive Democrat man said: "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."


Every time someone tells me that the government can provide effective oversight, I look at all the stuff that the government does well. Tax codes - the bright example of government efficiency and simplicity. The postal service (now it won't work on Saturdays). And the magnificent system of subsidies. And now, we got this. The State of California created a list of child abusers. What's ironic is that it's enough to be ACCUSED of a crime - and you get on this list. But it gets better, much better. Even if the court clears your name - you still cannot get off the list. As the local authorities said - they don't have a procedure to this. And these people want to run insurance companies? Oy-wei.

Obama will have to raise gasoline prices to $7 a gallon to fulfill his promises. This is what the NYT tells its readers. The sobering reality of Obama's plan is obvious - in order to make His promises good, we need to completely destroy the US economy. And while we are doing this - the Chinese will continue pumping as much CO2 into the air as is humanely possible. And what will happen next? Do you think the world, where communist China is the dominant power, and US is in ruins, will be a better, safer place to live?


FBI is asked to find the killers of Hamas terrorist.  It's been reported that Dubai police asked Obama's FBI to help them track the killers of the top Hamas leaders, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh . It is well-known that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and it's against the US law to provide any aid to it. It is rumored that it were the secret service of some moderate Arab countries that killed the terrorist. Any aid that FBI would give to Dubai police is equivalent to aiding and abetting Hamas. Will the FBI, run by Obama's operatives do that? Will they help Dubai to prosecute moderate Arab states and thus make the world a safer place for Hamas? The future will tell, but as I said earlier, we will be lucky if US is a neutral country during the presidency of Barack Obama. Don't forget that Obama sanctioned Honduras when its Supreme Court ousted the communist president of that country for the attempt to illegally seize power.

-A few nice quotes about liberals taken from here.
"It has been well said that really up-to-date liberals do not care what people do, as long as it is compulsory." -- George Will


"A liberal, in the current sense of the term, is a person who favors a massive welfare state, expansive and intrusive government, high taxation, preferential allocation of social goods to designated 'victim' groups, and deference to international bureaucracies in matters of foreign policy." -- John Derbyshire

"Liberals aren't always so liberal when people disapprove of their point of view." -- Clint Eastwood

"...frothing-at-the-mouth liberals venting their spleens made me chuckle. There's nobody more intolerant and narrow-minded than a tolerant and open-minded liberal, is there? -- Brian Francoeur

"Liberals can't separate their emotions to take a look at the logic and facts." -- Chris Mulder

"I've never quite been able to figure out why liberals self-identify with qualities such as 'bright', 'non-conforming', and 'hanging loose', then turn around and demand a system of government that represses creativity and initiative, stifles individuality, robs the productive to support the slothful, and demands a high degree of unthinking conformity. ... Liberals seem to think they are libertarians, but until they learn that economic freedom is more important to the health of a free society than sexual license, they will remain Stalinists in drag." -- Mr. Jeeves

"Liberalism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, can help themselves"

and "Annoy a Liberal: Work. Succeed. Be Happy" -- seen on bumper stickers

"Remember, to a liberal, anyone who makes money in an endeavor frowned upon by liberals is 'greedy' and any person who expresses an idea contrary to basic liberal dogma is preaching 'hate.' How shallow these people are." -- Neal Boortz

Only a liberal can see and hear a liberal and say, 'That's not liberal!' But there's a reason for that -- to a liberal, liberal is not liberal; it's mainstream." -- Robert Cooper


"Liberals want a disarmed, docile, easily controlled and dependent on Government populace." -- Khankrum

"There is nothing so pitiable as a liberal with no one to pity." -- Mr. Lizard

"Liberals seem to assume that, if you don't believe in their particular political solutions, then you don't really care about the people that they claim to want to help." -- Dr. Thomas Sowell

"Liberals hold us individually responsible for nothing but collectively responsible for everything.” -- a reader of Thomas Sowell's, here