Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Camilla and Marion Strong

OK, I had to do this. I have been thinking about this since she sunk her claws into a royal member.

Now for the Lucy angle.
Lucy tells the truth plot summary
Lucy is caught in a white lie and Ricky and the Mertzes have had just about enough of her fibbing. People only believe you when you lie, Lucy asserts, but don't believe you when you tell the truth. Putting Lucy's theory to the test, Ricky and the Mertzes bet Lucy that she can't go one day without lying. Lucy picks up the gauntlet, even though the next day she and Ethel have their weekly bridge game with Carolyn Applebee and Marion Strong. Lucy tells Carolyn what she thinks of her new Chinese modern furniture (a nightmare you'd have after eating too much Chinese food) and clobbers Marion for her giddiness [and her HAT! editor] and Ethel for blabbing incessantly. Fred is a tightwad and Ricky is a ham. The real test comes when Lucy auditions for a television show -- can she get the part without lying or will she lie to get the part, at the 23rd hour?
Ok, here is the hat that Lucy says is the "silliest looking hat" she ever saw, and it is "horrible".

And now for Camilla's BIGGER version:

I report. You decide.

Friday, January 26, 2007

Obama's "Debunking" of Islamic Background Raises More Questions

More important, in his own two autobiographies, Obama writes that his teacher at the school sent a note home to his mother that Obama made trouble by making faces while the class was studying the Koran. Uh, sorry, but public schools DO NOT study the Koran. Islamic schools do.
And finally, there is the glaring red flag on Obama's attendance at Fransiskus Assisi, a Catholic school.

AP reports this:

At first, Obama attended the Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisi, where documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather.

The document required that each student choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering _ Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant. Gibbs said he wasn't sure why the document had Obama listed as a Muslim.

Gee, if he wasn't a Muslim, but a Catholic, why would a Catholic identify as a Muslim in a Catholic school? He and his parents were trying to hide his Catholic background from a Catholic school?

Taqiyyah. I cannot trust Obama.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Hunter Makes Candidacy Official Thursday

According to a statement released Tuesday, Hunter will make his announcement at the Marriott Renaissance Park hotel in the South Carolina city of Spartanburg — located in the state’s overwhelmingly Republican northwestern region. The breakfast event is titled “America: The Strength of Freedom,” which also is Hunter’s campaign slogan.

As I get an official Web page or updates, I will add them.

UPDATE: Duncan Hunter for President

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

House Resolution 78

Emphasis mine.
Closing statement: In 1970 Tom Foley was quoted as saying that it was very clear that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to do this. It's backhanded, duplicitous, and dishonest of the Democrats to bring this forward and it's an attempt to try to get these delegates voting rights down the road.

Democrats' Unconstitutional Power Grab
To add insult to injury, non-members would be able to vote to raise taxes on the American people but would not have to pay them. Yes, that is not a misprint—non-members would have the ability to take more from your paychecks and not be held accountable for their actions. Residents of Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico do not pay federal income taxes, yet the Democrat plan will allow them to hike taxes on Americans that do. It does not take a math whiz to understand that this logic does not add up.

Ethical Congress indeed.

Write your representative

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Hillary How fast can you compromise

Hillary, You expect god fearing self respecting people to vote for you??? Can you really expect anyone to respect someone that has no self respect and puts up with a cheating husband just to further her own political career? Your compromise only goes to show that you will will sacrifice anything to to further yourself. Do you really think that this will help the country? The last thing we need is for some self-serving political tree climber to get to the top and crap on the rest of us. We need someone who will work FOR and WITH THE PEOPLE that pay the taxes and enable the rest to survive.

....and you all wonder why I sign my posts White Knuckles??

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Let's fisk Hillary's announcement, just for my own pleasure because I am in a bad mood

I'm in. And I'm in to win.

Yeah, there's a big surprise.
Today I am announcing that I will form an exploratory committee to run for president.

...and crush and humiliate Obama in the process.
And I want you to join me not just for the campaign but for a conversation about the future of our country -- about the bold but practical changes we need to overcome six years of Bush administration failures.

Six years where he had to fling the dung you and your husband left not only on the Constitution but to replace the "W" on all the White House keyboards. How childish can you be?
I am going to take this conversation directly to the people of America, and I'm starting by inviting all of you to join me in a series of web chats over the next few days.

Where I will take no hard questions, or criticism of any kind.
The stakes will be high when America chooses a new president in 2008.

I agree with you. Did Hell just freeze over?
As a senator, I will spend two years doing everything in my power to limit the damage George W. Bush can do. But only a new president will be able to undo Bush's mistakes and restore our hope and optimism.

You had EIGHT years to let terrorism fester! Do you think we need to give you any more time?!? Undo what he has thankfully restored in many ways? Oh and by the way, when Bush speaks, I DO feel optimism. When you speak, I hear fingernails on a chalkboard. And you know what I am talkin' about.
Only a new president can renew the promise of America -- the idea that if you work hard you can count on the health care, education, and retirement security that you need to raise your family. These are the basic values of America that are under attack from this administration every day.

DO NOT "Mommy" me! I make the decisions for my life, THAT is the value of America, the individual, not YOU making my decisions.
And only a new president can regain America's position as a respected leader in the world.

Then why are people going through hoops to get here, if they didn't want to be here? Our position is not in jeopardy, except by the jihadists. And it seems to me I have seen pictures of you and your daughter in hijabs.
I believe that change is coming November 4, 2008. And I am forming my exploratory committee because I believe that together we can bring the leadership that this country needs. I'm going to start this campaign with a national conversation about how we can work to get our country back on track.

You are no leader, I will not follow, and George Bush has gotten this country more on track.
Oh the horror of life under the Bush Debacle!

Let’s see, last time I checked,
1. The stock market is at an all-time high, thus
2. Retirement accounts are at last recovering.
3. Unemployment is at a 25-year low,
4. Taxes are at 20-year lows,
5. Federal revenues are at all-time highs,
6. The Federal deficit is down almost 50%,
7. Real estate values have soared,
8. Inflation is at a 20-year low,
9. There have been no successful attacks since 9/11,
10. Al Queda is being taken apart, one body at a time.
11. U.S. and British Intelligence have thwarted a number of attacks.
12. The terrorists are flocking to Iraq to be killed, instead of boarding planes for this country.

This is a big election with some very big questions. How do we bring the war in Iraq to the right end? How can we make sure every American has access to adequate health care? How will we ensure our children inherit a clean environment and energy independence? How can we reduce the deficits that threaten Social Security and Medicare?

Good gravy woman! You TRIED HillaryCare and guess what? NO ONE WANTED IT!!! Bush tried to fix Social Security and you OBSTRUCTED it's measures! And how do we win in Iraq? Crush islamism. But you do not get that.
No matter where you live, no matter what your political views, I want you to be a part of this important conversation right at the start. So to begin, I'm going to spend the next several days answering your questions in a series of live video web discussions. Starting Monday, January 22, at 7 p.m. EST for three nights in a row, I'll sit down to answer your questions about how we can work together for a better future. And you can participate live at my website. Sign up to join the conversation here.

Oh yeah. I will be right there. NOT.
I grew up in a middle-class family in the middle of America, where I learned that we could overcome every obstacle we face if we work together and stay true to our values.

Who cares where you grew up? Why aren't you THERE representing them instead of foisting yourself on MY home state where you are not wanted?
I have worked on issues critical to our country almost all my life. I've fought for children for more than 30 years. In Arkansas, I pushed for education reform. As First Lady, I helped to expand health care coverage to millions of children and to pass legislation that dramatically increased adoptions. I also traveled to China to affirm that women's rights are human rights.

Ummm, hello? Anyone there? As First Lady you cannot PASS anything! (except maybe kidney stones). Oh and the phrase "lady" does not apply to you. From "lady=a woman who is refined, polite, and well-spoken". You are NONE of those things, oh PantSuited One. And explain to me, WHY were you in China? On the taxpayer's dime? Where you authorized? We have a STATE DEPARTMENT for that. Or don't you understand constitutional separation of powers? And they edited your book, doncha know. You were probably in violation of the Logan Act, but then trifles like the law do not bother you.
And in the Senate, I have worked across party lines to get billions more for children's health care, to stop the president's plan to privatize Social Security, and to make sure the victims and heroes of 9/11 and our men and women in uniform receive the fair treatment they deserve. In 2006, I led the successful fight to make Plan B contraception available to women without a prescription.

ok, you are a nut. First, you say you want to fix Social Security and then you cop to stopping the fix. You say you want to give fair treatment to the victims of 9/11 but where was your voice denouncing the Crescent of Embrace memorial? And birth control is a fight? Are you saying women are too stupid to know who to bang and who not to bang? We know you certainly couldn't manage your own home, so stay out of ours.
I have spent a lifetime opening opportunities for tens of millions who are working hard to raise a family: new immigrants, families living in poverty, people who have no health care or face an uncertain retirement.

A lifetime of open borders and picking the pockets of people who have worked hard for their money to redistribute it? Thanks a bunch.
The promise of America is that all of us will have access to opportunity, and I want to run a 2008 campaign that renews that promise, a campaign built on a lifetime record of results.

Your results suck. Someone is going to have to come behind you and scrape up the muck you have left.
I have never been afraid to stand up for what I believe in or to face down the Republican machine. After nearly $70 million spent against my campaigns in New York and two landslide wins, I can say I know how Washington Republicans think, how they operate, and how to beat them.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You couldn't even "face down" Ann Coulter. You made a half-hearted comment against her Jersey Girls harpie remark, and she spit back, yeah well tell Hillary to talk to her husband about Juanitta, then we will talk, and you never opened your mouth again, and NEVER faced her. And what a stupid remark: campaigns in NEW YORK will help me in WASHINGTON. No, you have your attack dogs out now on your competitors. They need to watch their backs.
I need you to be a part of this campaign, and I hope you'll start by joining me in this national conversation.

Oh yes indeed, if only to keep you out of the White House and the Senate.
As we campaign to win the White House, we will make history and remake our future. We can only break barriers if we dare to confront them, and if we have the determined and committed support of others.

What barriers? Name them please. So you can be the FIRST woman president, I guess. Frankly my dear, you are no Margaret Thatcher. Or Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Spare us.
This campaign is our moment, our chance to stand up for the principles and values that we cherish; to bring new ideas, energy, and leadership to a uniquely challenging time. It's our chance to say "we can" and "we will."

The only thing you value is yourself. You don't care who or what brings you to power. Including the Saudis, who financed your husband's pathetic library. We can and we will stop you.
Let's go to work. America's future is calling us.

You are right about that! We are saying STFD, STFU, go home and get out of politics. And take your husband with you.

Friday, January 19, 2007

Rosie O'Donnell and 'The View' blast 'Idol' judges and producers

The View chicks discussing American Idol:
"It's like the new freak show really," said Behar. "There's an appetite for it out there in the public. People want to watch it."

Pot. Meet Kettle.

And they really cannot see the irony.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Duncan Hunter

Ok, I keep hearing this name for President.

COULTER: Yes, Mitt Romney. I mean, I love Duncan Hunter.

An Interview With Duncan Hunter

John Hawkins: Would you like to see Roe v. Wade overturned?

Duncan Hunter: Yes. You know, I'm the author of the personhood-at-conception bill which right now has over 100 co-sponsors ...that would define personhood as moment of conception, so, it would allow us to have a reversal of the effects of Roe v. Wade without a constitutional amendment.

John Hawkins: Drilling ANWR.

Duncan Hunter: Yes

Peace Through Strength

Enemy At Home The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11

TH: Why is the cultural left so reluctant to fight the terrorists and export “a more liberal set of values, such as self-government, minority rights, and religious tolerance?” How have cultural relativism and multiculturalism affected this reluctance?

DSOUZA: It might seem at first glance that the cultural left should be in the forefront to fight radical Islam. The reason is that Bin Laden and the Islamic radicals are so illiberal. They despise women’s rights and gay rights. I think we all know what they would do with Hillary Clinton or Barney Frank. Even so, the cultural left has shown itself extremely reluctant to support Bush’s war on terror. They aren’t just against the Iraq war, they are against the Patriot Act, and the telephone surveillance program, and the invasion of Afghanistan, and the sanctions proposals against Iran’s nuclear program. In short, they want Bush’s war on terror to fail. And this means that they want the Islamic radicals to succeed.

Why? The reason actually has nothing to do with cultural relativism or multiculturalism. It has everything to do with domestic politics. Basically the left hates Bush more than it hates Bin Laden. Bin Laden is a foreign threat, but Bush is a domestic threat. In the last couple of decades the left-wing agenda has become increasingly dominated by social and sexual concerns. So who threatens abortion rights in America? Not Bin Laden, Bush. Who is blocking gay marriage? Not Al Qaeda, Bush’s court appointees. While Bin Laden wants sharia in Baghdad, Bush and the religious right are, in the leftist view, trying to impose sharia in Boston. Consequently the left is quite willing to ally with the lesser evil, the Islamic radicals, in order to defeat the greater evil, Bush and the conservatives.

REad it all.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse

Oy. From DrudgeI found a link to this pathetic article. Let's begin shall we? Emphasis mine throughout.
51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse
So a man isn't a man, but a spouse? Women are women but men are no longer men.
For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.
Women are not wives but men are husbands. Got it.
In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.
Ok we get it, we GET IT. Men are unnecessary.
Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.
How so? Why should the government intrude? Ohhhhhhhh so we can accommodate a variety of "lifestyles"? Government benefits? Why would single people require that? Single, free, unfettered people not hindered by that evil of evils, marriage?
Several factors are driving the statistical shift. At one end of the age spectrum, women are marrying later or living with unmarried partners more often and for longer periods. At the other end, women are living longer as widows and, after a divorce, are more likely than men to delay remarriage, sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom.
Partners? Are they men or women? Perhaps cats? And why add the qualifier "delighting in their newfound freedom"? Widows are free? If my husband passed away I would be grieving not delighting.
In addition, marriage rates among black women remain low. Only about 30 percent of black women are living with a spouse, according to the Census Bureau, compared with about 49 percent of Hispanic women, 55 percent of non-Hispanic white women and more than 60 percent of Asian women.
And what does this tell us, breaking down the statistics by race? The authors just throw this in for no apparent reason or provide further analysis.
In a relatively small number of cases, the living arrangement is temporary, because the husbands are working out of town, are in the military or are institutionalized. But while most women eventually marry, the larger trend is unmistakable.
Military or insane asylum? Is that what the authors are saying? Goes right along with the liberal theme of joining the military ONLY if you are crazy. Or lazy. Or stupid.
“This is yet another of the inexorable signs that there is no going back to a world where we can assume that marriage is the main institution that organizes people’s lives,” said Prof. Stephanie Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, a nonprofit research group. “Most of these women will marry, or have married. But on average, Americans now spend half their adult lives outside marriage.”
Marriage. (Insert Peter Cook's voice from The Princess Bride here.) "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." This is one of the definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary. Marriage organizes our lives? Yup. That is why I married my husband, to get organized. And the first half of that expression is "most women" and then right after, Americans. What about most men? How do they feel? Do they want to get married or does this group only research the horrifying effects of marriage on women. The first link from their website goes to Alternatives to Marriage Project. This group is studying not just families but contemporary families. What is that? What is that definition? Well, the esteemed Professor offers this nugget of advice:
How to stay married
Stephanie Coontz
As married couples become a minority, our correspondent argues that the best way to keep a marriage strong and healthy is to retain a close network of friends
No mention of family, church, God, or anything resembling a traditional marriage and family.
Professor Coontz said this was probably unprecedented with the possible exception of major wartime mobilizations and when black couples were separated during slavery.

William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, a research group in Washington, described the shift as “a clear tipping point, reflecting the culmination of post-1960 trends associated with greater independence and more flexible lifestyles for women.”
Without marriage we have greater independence? Where is that written? How does that work?
“For better or worse, women are less dependent on men or the institution of marriage,” Dr. Frey said. “Younger women understand this better, and are preparing to live longer parts of their lives alone or with nonmarried partners. For many older boomer and senior women, the institution of marriage did not hold the promise they might have hoped for, growing up in an ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ era.”
Yes, when I want an informed opinion on marriage, the first group of people I am going to go are young, inexperienced, unmarried women. Perhaps these women have been indoctrinated by people like these authors.
Emily Zuzik, a 32-year-old musician and model who lives in the East Village of Manhattan, said she was not surprised by the trend.

“A lot of my friends are divorced or single or living alone,” Ms. Zuzik said. “I know a lot of people in their 30s who have roommates.”

Ms. Zuzik has lived with a boyfriend twice, once in California where the couple registered as domestic partners to qualify for his health insurance plan. “I don’t plan to live with anyone else again until I am married,” she said, “and I may opt to keep a place of my own even then.”

Linda Barth, a 56-year-old magazine editor in Houston who has never married, said, “I used to divide my women friends into single friends and married friends. Now that doesn’t seem to be an issue.”

Sheila Jamison, who also lives in the East Village and works for a media company, is 45 and single. She says her family believes she would have had a better chance of finding a husband had she attended a historically black college instead of Duke.

“Considering all the weddings I attended in the ’80s that have ended so very, very badly, I consider myself straight up lucky,” Ms. Jamison said. “I have not sworn off marriage, but if I do wed, it will be to have a companion with whom I can travel and play parlor games in my old age.”

Carol Crenshaw, 57, of Roswell, Ga., was divorced in 2005 after 33 years and says she is in no hurry to marry again.

“I’m in a place in my life where I’m comfortable,” said Ms. Crenshaw, who has two grown sons. “I can do what I want, when I want, with whom I want. I was a wife and a mother. I don’t feel like I need to do that again.”

Similarly, Shelley Fidler, 59, a public policy adviser at a law firm, has sworn off marriage. She moved from rural Virginia to the vibrant Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., when her 30-year marriage ended.

The benefits were completely unforeseen for me,” Ms. Fidler said, “the free time, the amount of time I get to spend with friends, the time I have alone, which I value tremendously, the flexibility in terms of work, travel and cultural events.”
Not one currently married woman quoted, not one man. Not one opposing example.
Among the more than 117 million women over the age of 15, according to the marital status category in the Census Bureau’s latest American Community Survey, 63 million are married. Of those, 3.1 million are legally separated and 2.4 million said their husbands were not living at home for one reason or another.

That brings the number of American women actually living with a spouse to 57.5 million, compared with the 59.9 million who are single or whose husbands were not living at home when the survey was taken in 2005.
Some of those situations, which the census identifies as “spouse absent” and “other,” are temporary, and, of course, even some people who describe themselves as separated eventually reunite with their spouses.
Over all, a larger share of men are married and living with their spouse — about 53 percent compared with 49 percent among women.

Ok, so are they saying the more men than women are married? How does THAT compute?
“Since women continue to outlive men, they have reached the nonmarital tipping point — more nonmarried than married,” Dr. Frey said. “This suggests that most girls growing up today can look forward to spending more of their lives outside of a traditional marriage.”

Pamela J. Smock, a researcher at the University of Michigan Population Studies Center, agreed, saying that “changing patterns of courtship, marriage, and that we are living longer lives all play a role.”
Who is changing the patterns and why, pray tell. Who benefits from this change?

“Men also remarry more quickly than women after a divorce,” Ms. Smock added, “and both are increasingly likely to cohabit rather than remarry after a divorce.”
I cannot imagine why. Maybe the men know something these clueless people do not. That marriage works.
The proportion of married people, especially among younger age groups, has been declining for decades. Between 1950 and 2000, the share of women 15-to-24 who were married plummeted to 16 percent, from 42 percent. Among 25-to-34-year-olds, the proportion dropped to 58 percent, from 82 percent.

“Although we can help people ‘do’ marriage better, it is simply delusional to construct social policy or make personal life decisions on the basis that you can count on people spending most of their adult lives in marriage,” said Professor Coontz, the author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.”
Oh that book sounds like a real page turner.
Besse Gardner, 24, said she and her boyfriend met as college freshmen and started living together last April “for all the wrong reasons” — they found a great apartment on the beach in Los Angeles.

“We do not see living together as an end or even for the rest of our lives — it’s just fun right now,” Ms. Gardner said. “My roommate is someone I’d be thrilled to marry one day, but it just doesn’t make sense right now.”

Ms. Crenshaw said that some of the women in her support group for divorced women were miserable, but that she was surprised how happy she was to be single again.

“That’s not how I grew up,” she said. “That’s not how society thinks. It’s a marriage culture.”
And so now you are counter-culture? Hip and cool?

Elissa B. Terris, 59, of Marietta, Ga., divorced in 2005 after being married for 34 years and raising a daughter, who is now an adult.

“A gentleman asked me to marry him and I said no,” she recalled. “I told him, ‘I’m just beginning to fly again, I’m just beginning to be me. Don’t take that away.’

Marriage kind of aged me because there weren’t options,” Ms. Terris said. “There was only one way to go. Now I have choices. One night I slept on the other side of the bed, and I thought, I like this side.”

She said she was returning to college to get a master’s degree (her former husband “didn’t want me to do that because I was more educated than he was”), had taken photography classes and was auditioning for a play.

“Once you go through something you think will kill you and it doesn’t,” she said, “every day is like a present.”
Imagine that. Women gleefully cheering having no man in their lives. Did it ever occur to one of these women that no man would have such harpies?

Well, how about an OPPOSING point of view, just for kicks.

The American founders were also very intent on the idea of the self-governing couple raising children to be self-governing citizens. To this day, marriage and wealth are interconnected. Married men make more money than unmarried men, controlling for race, education, and just about every widely measured variable. Seventy percent of American households own their own home; most of them are married couples.

According to a study comparing married couples and divorced and single individuals, the average net wealth of married couples increases 16% a year; after 15 years, their net worth is 93% higher than divorced and singles. That's why I say that marriage - the social institution, rather than the personal relationship - helps us understand disturbing trends in inequality and immobility.


But there is also no doubt that the unmarriage revolution was in large measure a product of dubious ideas. Idealists of the 1960's imagined that if you could free individuals from traditional modes of being and traditional institutions, they could experience life more directly, more "ecstatically" as Hillary Clinton put it in her famous Wellesley graduation speech. Adding to the anti-marriage movement was the belief among feminists that marriage was the source of female inequality.
As for me and my house, we will keep our marriage, thank you. I do not want your "freedom".

Today has been a depressing day.

From Barking Moonbat Early Warning System

Raising Taxes
I for one am completely surprised. Surprised, that is, that it took the Democrats a whole fifteen days to get around to raising taxes. Then again, they had to take care of those pesky Republicans first and make sure they couldn’t stop the greedy tax-and-spend bullshit that is coming.

Yep, the Donks rolled over the Republicans and repealed the rule that requires a super-majority to raise taxes first. Now they have a free hand and that hand is headed for your and my wallet.

Don’t blame me. I didn’t vote for a single Democrat in the last election. Welcome to the new “cut-and-run”, “tax-and-spend”, “redistribute-the-wealth” Socialist People’s Republic Of America. Are you happy now?

And now from The Radio Equalizer
Hush Rush Rerun?
Don't look now, but one of the first items of business for congressional Democrats, now in the majority, is to reinstate the free- speech stifling Fairness Doctrine. Once used in an attempt to achieve "balance" on the airwaves, the policy remained in force until the 1980s.

Its Reagan- era repeal, of course, paved the way for talk radio as we know it today. But now, according to AllAccess, the so- called "hush Rush" law could once again rear its ugly head:

Great. Just great. This is going to be a very bumpy two years. Higher taxes and MORE liberal crap on tv and radio.

We are in deep doo doo now.

"Obama's life story is vastly different from the one he portrays. My point: if he will lie about his mother and father, what else is he lying about? Can we expect 'bimbo eruptions?'

"Fiction: Obama stated in his Convention speech: 'My father … grew up herding goats.' The 'goat herder' claim has been repeated endlessly. It is a lie.

"Fact: Obama's grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama was a prominent and wealthy farmer. His son, Obama's father, was a child of privilege, not privation. He was an outstanding student, not a herdsman.

"Fiction: Obama was given an 'African' name.

"Fact: Obama is a Muslim who has concealed his religion. I am a strong supporter of the Muslim community, and I believe Muslims have been scapegoated. Obama has a great opportunity to be forthright.

I am reaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllllyyyyyyy over this guy.

Friday, January 05, 2007

Her Imperial Majesty and Green Helmet Guy

Frankly, I do not see much difference in the PR of these two images. Both are exploitative.

I predict she will go down in flames in some real (not imagined or trumped up "vast right wing conspiracy) scandal. It is destiny. Just as Green Helmut Guy was exposed as a fraud, so shall she.