QC Examiner

I hope my lawyer will show his briefs.

Out of all the idiotic commentary I’ve seen about the Obama New Yorker cover cartoon, hands down the most idiotic is this in the NYTimes.

Bill Carter attempts to describe why so many left-wingers don’t find Obama funny.

Twice he describes the “humor” people as being dominated by “white hosts, white writers, and white audiences” but fails to describe them as being libruuuls.

Carter says “there has been little humor about Mr. Obama”. Jon Stewart says “We’re carrion birds”, but so far no punch lines have landed. Well yes, carrion birds for Bush/McCain/GOP—for Democrats, not so much.

Mike Barry helpfully adds: “The thing is, he’s not buffoonish in any way”. When Stewart tried to joke about Obama’s flip-flops the jokes fell flat.

Well gee, maybe Stewart and Barry should ask those leaning to the right about Obama The Buffoon. They would find out that Obama has been mocked for his flip-flopping, for his Urckleness, his multitude of gaffes (57 states, to name one)—but they don’t wanna know since they are in the tank for Obama.

But here’s the fact—Stewart, Colbert, etc. are left-wing partisans. They want Obama to win and they don’t want to be labeled as “racists—which is Obama’s trump card.

The New Yorker cover was a smear against the right, not Obama, but the left still gets hysterical about it. Pathetic.

Useful quotes from the article:

“I think white audiences get a little self-concious if race comes up.”

“There’s a weird reverse racism going on. You can’t joke about (Obama) because he’s half-white. It’s silly. I think it’s more of a problem because he’s so polished, he doesn’t seem to have any flaws.” (well, yeah if you’re in the tank for Obama!)

“A lot of people are excited about his candidacy. It’s almost like ‘Hey, don’t go after this guy. He’s a fresh face; cut him some slack.”

“I think some of us were maybe too quick to caricature Al Gore and John Kerry and there’s maybe some reluctance to do the same thing to (Obama).”

“Anything that has even a whiff of being racist, no one is going to laugh.”

So don’t count on Colbert and Stewart to be brave and bold—-unless they can diss Bush or McCain. It’s just too risky to joke about Obama for fear of hurting his chances to be POTUS and being called “racists”.

But hey, they have “delivered a nightly stream of jokes about the Republican running for president—each one a variant on the same theme: John McCain is old.”

Well, isn’t that special—and original?

Sheesh!

You can’t make this stuff up!

Barack Obama has always said “the surge is not working”, that it WON’T work and that the surge has barely reduced violence in the Matt Lauer “civil war”.

Well no one expects for Barry to admit he’s wrong—it ain’t gonna happen, instead he sends down the memory hole any indication that he was against the surge.

That’s a neat trick— Barry is seriously telling us that up is down, which his worshippers will buy—the rest of us, not so much.

Change you can believe in—or maybe not!

Fearmongers are among the land as they are during every budget battle here in the wonderful State O’ Illinois.

If I remember correctly, the last hysteria had something to do with defunding the 4-H program, or the taxpayer supported 4-H employees, or something—I’m sorry, but I never pay much attention to this brand of Illinois political theatre.

But today in a front page story, the Dispatch promotes the latest round of budget fearmongering with a story called Historic Park In Jeopardy.

The park in question is Black Hawk State Historic Site situated in Rock Island.

Out of the billions Blago decided to cut, Black Hawk was one of many. Go to the link the read the shrieks of outrage—and the attaboys! Why do taxpayers need to be in the park business—-in fact, there are many facets of life that various governments have taken over, which become the taxpayer’s burden—don’t get me started.

Park “foundation” officials, who make their living off other people’s taxes are in a frenzy, and why shouldn’t they be—-government has expanded to the point where it is the largest employer, local, state and federal.

But forget the taxpayer subsidized whiners—this is what caught my attention:

“This is the only historic site in (Illinois) that actually deals with Native Americans whose descendants are still alive today. . .(t)he ground is sacred to Native Americans. It has so much religious value to them.”

Well gee, what about the separation of church and state? Do the Mormons demand Illinois taxpayers finance their “sacred” sites at Nauvoo? And since gambling has come to the tribes, Native Americans aren’t exactly downtrodden, either.

So I say let’s give Black Hawk back to his descendants—-taxpayers have enough idiocy to finance.

Have you ever wondered why Democrats get a pass on sexual and financial scandals when Republicans don’t?

The Other McCain explains why:

“The Democratic Party’s something-for-nothing ethic—the thievish and corrupting notion that people are entitled to government benefits paid for by other people’s taxes — renders the party scandal-proof. Oh, sure, Democrats pretend to be upset when Republicans are caught in scandalous behavior. But their phony outrage merely hides their glee at the prospect of ousting a Republican, so they can elect even more Democrats, so they can vote themselves more “free” government benefits.”

“It is foolish to expect public officials to uphold standards of morality that their constituents routinely disregard. How is the politician who lines his pockets from embezzled funds any worse than the man who joins a corrupt labor union? (Of course, all labor unions are corrupt.) How is a crooked government employee worse than someone who votes for Democrats in hopes of getting more taxpayer-funded benefits? It’s theft either way and calling it ‘progressive social policy’ doesn’t make it moral.”

Well, yeah.

In what was obviously intended to be a hit piece on John McCain, the LATimes did a story about John McCain’s divorce 30 years ago and the effect it had on his relationship with Ron and Nancy Reagan.

No matter how you feel about John McCain, I think you should read this. Although his divorce was decades ago, it still says something about his character.

I think we all know some 40-somethings who want to be 20 somethings, but the telling thing for me is how McCain has handled this inconvenient truth.

McCain has always taken responsibility for the breakup saying “My marriage’s collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity. The blame was entirely mine”.

Contrast that with Bill Clinton’s quote, when asked why he did what he did with Monica Lewinsky, famously replied “Because I could.” Sheesh! But let’s get real—the Democrats have never been the party of personal responsibility.

But forget Horndog Bill—-thank the gods he won’t be getting blowjobs in the WH again!

While some will look at this LATimes story as a hit job—which is surely is, it at least gives a more complete view of McCain’s character. Without this humanizing story, McCain would seem almost super-human, enduring torture that would make the rest of us cry like little girls.

But contrast this with what is known about Obama. What do we know about Obama that Obama doesn’t want us to know? The national press wants him to win and is protecting him, so we won’t be seeing these kinds of stories from them,

which is why the alternative press is so important. Without them, we’ll never know the inconvenient truths about Obama he doesn’t want us to know and we will be stuck with another George W. Bush.

Consider this: McCain released thousands of pages of his medical history; Obama released one page from his doctor saying he was “healthy”. What’s Obama hiding?

We know so little about Obama as it is—in these tough times we can’t afford to elect someone whose only claim to fame is that he talks purdy.

In yet another attempt by the national press to help Obama win by making him more palatable to independents and centrists, the LATimes presents an article called Obama, McCain Agree On Many Once-Divisive Issues.

The LATimes says Obama and McCain (O’Cain? McBama?) agree on stem cell research, nuclear nonproliferation, immigration, faith-based social services, expanded government wiretapping, global warming and even Iraq.

Then they find some doofus to give this idiotic quote:

“It debunks the common view that Obama is the most liberal Democratic senator. . .(a)nd it debunks the view that McCain is really the third Bush term.”

Well, not exactly.

You see, when Obama chooses to vote, which isn’t all that often, he votes in lockstep with his party. The rest of him is just words. His voting record IS liberal.

By contrast, as David Brooks noted, McCain has a history of bucking his party and presidents of both parties, to-wit:

1. Has a long history of battling lobbyists.

2. Voted AGAINST the Telecom Act in ‘96, the only Republican to do so, and BILL CLINTON was POTUS and signed it.

3. Championed anti-smoking legislation in ‘98.

4. 2000 voted AGAINST ethanol subsidies.

5. Sponsored McCain-Feingold, which among other things (many I don’t agree with) put the clamp on lobbyists.

6. Sponsored the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewarship Act.

7. In 2004, he exposed billions of dollars in waste by initiating a congressional investigation into the leasing contract between the Pentagon and Boeing.

8. In 2005 he led a congressional invstigation into the activities of lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

9. Continually assaults the practice of earmarks. McCain takes none, Obama got his wife’s place of business a nice juicy earmark and she got a nice juicy raise. Obama is about as fond of pork as our specially selected porker.

So while Obama rails against McCain as part of the problem in Washington, I’d really like to know what the hell Obama has to show for his short time in the Senate—either Illinois or US. Sure he talks purdy, but what has he actually DONE?

McCain walks the walk, Obama, , ,not so much.

Barack “I Will Bring Change” Obama gave a speech recently called “A Secure Energy Future” attempting to explain his energy policy.

Twenty-four out of thirty-one paragraphs were the “old politics” standards of bashing his opponent and George Bush, plus the obligatory fearmongering.

When he finally did get down to specifics, here’s what he proposes:

1. A 50 billion dollar stimulus package and tax cuts for “immediate relief” from $4 gas. Ironically, he voted “present” when the last stimulus package came up for vote, and his wife is on record saying he is against these sort of “quick fixes”.

2. 150 billion investment in clean energy to reduced oil consumption by 2030.

3. 50 billion over 5 years for research on hybrid batteries.

4. 1 billion to modernize factories (WHAT factories?).

5. A requirement that 25% of our electricity come from renewable sources by 2025.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So that’s 250+ billion for—-what? Who’s gonna set the timetables and make sure they are met? Except for the stimulus package, which I assume he will vote FOR this time, Obama will be long gone before any of this happens.

Let’s get real, these are just words describing a fantasy. There is absolutely no meat in this fluffy dessert, which it seems we won’t be able to eat for twenty years anyway.

It’s obvious he’s just making stuff up—the real reason for this speech was to deliver more “old politics” style McCain/Bush bashing.

Bravo Barry! Mission accomplished!

Barack Obama is in talks to sponsor a NASCAR race car in the Pocono race on August 3.

This will be the first time ever a candidate for POTUS has sponsored a NASCAR race car.

The race track is in Pennsylvania, which is populated in part by those bitter, clinging Bible-thumping gun nuts and is a must-win for Obama.

NASCAR fans vote overwhelming for Republicans, so Obama is going deep into enemy territory with this audacious move.

It’s too bad the car he’s sponsoring is a Toyota, but I’m sure all those loyal lockstepping union members won’t mind—and it gives the rest of us something to laugh about!

Well yeah, of course we are.

It’s just another one of those inconvenient truths that can never been spoken during a political campaign. McCain economic adviser Phil Gramm got in trouble when he said our economy wasn’t in a “real” recession but a “mental” recession and that we’ve become a nation of whiners. We say we want our political class to be “straight talkers” and “truth-tellers”, but we really don’t.

Phil Gramm has a Ph.D in economics and knows more about that subject than Obama and McCain combined, but unfortunately Gramm’s not a very astute politician and as a result brought his pal McCain some heat.

Gramm refused to back down, and why should he—he’s correct, technically we AREN’T in a recession, but spouting data won’t help voters who are feeling the pinch, and politics is all about emotion and feelings not about truth and cold, hard facts.

The “nation of whiners” thing is so obvious, it’s laughable that it is even being refuted. We want everything NOW and CHEAP and if we don’t get it, we whine to the government until they get it for us.

There is no way we could endure what our forefathers and mothers did during WWII and The Great Depression; we are a nation that believes having cable TV is a “right”.

You need look no further than Barack Obama to see how pervasive whining is in this country. In an interview with the LATimes, Obama whined that the POTUS campaign was wearing him down, that he had lost 7-8 pounds, that he only got 4-5 hours of sleep, that he had no privacy because he was shadowed by the press and security every where he went and couldn’t do anything spur-of-the-moment, like just take a walk.

Unbelievable.

Maybe he is so naive and inexperienced he thinks the situation will ease up and improve once he is elected. The whining is bad enough and not exactly presidential, but he obviously lacks the experience and toughness needed to be POTUS.