QC Examiner

As I’m sure you know, finding a worthy recipient for this august award was a tough call—especially in the heat of a POTUS battle by both parties, but I do believe I have found a worthy person:

Hillary Clinton and her “give every newborn $5,000 from the government program.”

What’s not to like, after all, it’s for the freakin’ children? However, I do have my doubts that this freebie will “help Americans get back to the tradition of savings” as Hillary claims. That makes no sense—”Americans” won’t be saving, the government will be forcing “Americans” to save. Kinda like those personal Social Security accounts that don’t exist.

And let’s get real here, do we really need a new entitlement when we are facing a crises in funding Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

And isn’t paying people to have kids the same as the old welfare state, which Hillary’s wonderful husband said was over? I guess not, if it can buy her a few votes—-with other people’s money.

And what about the immigration crises? Illegals are already sucking social services dry, this will only encourage illegals to have even more kids to take advantage of the dumb gringos—-sounds like a plan—for illegals.

The money quote comes at the end of the article: “The New York Senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.” You do the math.

I guess the upside is that fewer women will be having abortions, since they would have a financial incentive to keep their babies.

Hillary Clinton: The Pander Bear salutes you!

UPDATE 10/1/07: Voters turn against Pander Bears, according to a recent Rasmussen survey. By a margin of 2 to 1 (60% against; 27% for) likely voters rejected Hillary’s $5000 baby bond entitlement scheme.

From hilarious horndog Roissy in DC:
Let me tell you, if you are discussing politics with your date, no matter how sympatico you both are, you won’t be getting laid. The tedious, dreary world of politics engages her logical mind when you want to do exactly the opposite. If she’s the type that can’t take a breather from braying about this or that political pet cause then she has control issues you want to avoid.

Bonus quote from the Washington Post article Roissy is blogging about:

One ardent Obama supporter who declined to give his name because he works in politics says he’ll attend both the (Obama) rally and the after party, and he doesn’t expect to be going home alone.He’s confident for a reason.”Let’s face it. Leftie girls are easy,” he says.

From those caring, compassionate, inclusive, tolerant, anti-bigot “progressives” at Huffington Post:

Right Wing Pulls Its Limp-Wristed Punch From California; Progressives Win

h/t:RCP Blog

this time from our local WQAD.

I am gonna have to stop doing these things—-this time my ideal candidate was Tom Tancredo, with #2 being Ron Paul.

Sheesh!

John Edwards has made millions as a trial lawyer and has a 28,000 sq.ft. McMansion, but today he announced he must suck off the taxpayer’s teats in order to continue his campaign for POTUS.

How does this man have any credibility?

Why should we have to finance a multi-millionaire in his quest for POTUS?

Michelle Obama, raising the ante:

If Barak doesn’t win Iowa, it’s just a dream. If we win Iowa then we can move to the world as it should be.”

UPDATE 9/28/07: The QCTimes reports today that the Obama camp is furiously backpedalling away from Mrs. Obama’s remarks.

is ambush and mindless gotcha questions, this time with MSNBC’s David Shuster, and his quarry, GOP Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn:

Shuster: “Let’s talk about the public trust. You represent, of course, a district in western Tennessee. What was the name of the last soldier from your district who was killed in Iraq?”

Blackburn: “The name of the last soldier killed in Iraq uh—from my district I—I do not know his name…

Shuster: “Okay, his name was Jeremy Bohannon. He was killed August the 9th, 2007. How come you didn’t know the name?”

Blackburn: “I—I, you know, I—I do not know why I did not know the name…”

Shuster: “But you weren’t appreciative enough to know the name of this young man. He was 18 years old who was killed, and yet you can say chapter and verse about what’s going on with the New York Times and MoveOn.org…
“Don’t you understand, the problems that a lot of people would have, that you’re so focused on an ad. When was the last time a New York Times ad ever killed somebody? I mean, here we have a war that took the life of an 18 year old kid, Jeremy Bohannon, from your district, and you didn’t even know his name.”

Doesn’t Shuster understand the problem a lot of people have with the press is the high-handed, blind-siding,  self-righteous agenda-pushing bloviation of people like Shuster?

Would anti-war selected-not-elected Phil Hare know who was the last person killed in Iraq in the 17th? If the soldier didn’t belong to a union, I seriously doubt Hare would know or care.

Of course, there are a lot of problems with the childlike thinking of Shuster, including the silly soundbite “When was the last time a New York Times ad ever killed somebody?”,but forget that—-the delicious irony here is that Jeremy Bohannon was NOT from Blackburn’s district.

So where did Shuster get this bogus information? From MoveOn.org, who contacted the producers of the show in order to get this “gotcha” question on the air. Sweet!

What a hoot! Personally, I don’t care if MSNBC wants to shill for MoveOn.org or any other anti-war organization. Unlike some Democrats, I think we need MORE POVs in the press, not less. If MSNBC wants to shill for the ghost of Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler, power to ‘em, but please don’t claim you are part of the “objective press”, because 1) it doesn’t exist, and 2) you just look stupid when you engage in advocacy journalism, and DON’T EVEN HAVE YER FREAKIN’ FACTS RIGHT!

All Republicans foolish enough to appear on MSNBC will have been warned—-MSNBC is a tool of the anti-war left, so be prepared for lame@ss ambush  ”gotcha” questions.

Is it any wonder why the press has such low credibility and approval ratings with the public?

Days after Blackwater was banned by the Iraq government for the shootings at Mansour, the Iraqi government did a 180 and allowed them back to operate in the country,  saying that it was impossible to ban Blackwater because the Iraqi security forces could not pick up the slack.

Abu Muqawama is a blog concerning issues about modern insurgencies, counterinsurgency tactics and strategy and has one of the best posts I’ve seen about the Blackwater matter; certainly better than anything you’ll see in the establishment press, since MSM have so little experience with the military in ANY form. 

According to the post, Blackwater is in to stay, no matter what the Iraqi government or the military, including our generals, think about them. Abu Muqawama includes a link to another story concerning ideas to get the Blackwater-type organizations under control.

Congress was supposed to legislate the boundaries for these types of organizations, but they were too busy producing Political Theatre, this time starring former Klansman Bobby Byrd and our very own special Dick (”Our Soldiers Are Nazis”) Durbin, with a supporting role for an anti-war extremist group as the Greek chorus. Between these political theatre presentations and cooking up meaningless bills, resolutions, etc. against the war, there just isn’t time to do any real work.

Besides being so much easier, it’s a lot more fun, and since no vote is required, no special interest group will be hurt in the process.

It’s a politicians dream—all show and no go!

I saw it on the Daily Show.

From a letter written by Vincent van Gogh concerning his philosophy for producing good work:

“…you have to eat well, be well housed, have a screw from time to time, smoke your pipe and drink your coffee in peace.”

h/t: Ms. Ann