The following interview of Bill Maher by Jake Tapper from ABC News is extremely revealing:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/four-questions-for-bill-maher/

This is so typical of liberals, who consider themselves brilliant in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  The most telling moment is when Maher admitted that calling Sarah Palin the “c” word was always one of the biggest laughs in his act.  I am sure that is true because Bill Maher has zero skills as a real comedian, and the only way he can get laughs is to make rude, profane and disgusting remarks about conservative republicans.  All he has to do is mention George Bush, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann with some sarcastic remark and the crowd goes wild.  There is a consistent minority of liberals who find this juvenile and disgusting behavior to be hysterically funny.  It is this extremely small audience that keeps Bill Maher on the air.

The reality is that if Bill Maher was trying to make a living by smearing liberal women, the way he smeared Sarah Palin, he wouldn’t have any audience.  Conservatives are not amused by cheap personal attacks of this nature, regardless of the target.  Rude and disgusting should always be considered rude and disgusting.

Even Democrats are only amused if the target is a conservative female, like Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann.  George Bush used to be the favorite target, but lately that doesn’t work anymore.  This is probably because George Bush has a higher approval rating than Obama.

Can you imagine Bill Maher making the same type of slams about Hillary Clinton, or Nancy Pelosi.  The liberal left would go nuts.  They would have demanded Maher be fired long ago.  On the other hand, if someone makes any remark about a liberal that could possibly be misinterpreted as racist or sexist the liberal left goes ballistic. 

Perhaps the problem is that liberals just aren’t that bright.  There is a reason conservatives dominate talk radio.  Liberals aren’t smart enough to be funny.  That is why liberal talk show hosts can only build an audience by making outrageous and cheap personal attacks on conservatives.  The part of the audience that eats that stuff up loves it, but everyone else is quickly bored.

In the meantime, it appears that liberals forgot about video.  Just about the time they were salivating over the opportunity to finally drive a stake intp Rush Limbaugh’s heart, they were confronted with all those clips from people like Bill Maher and Ed Schultz.  Suddenly, Limbaugh looks like a choir boy in comparison.  Casting stones at Limbaugh for calling Ms. Fluke a slut is the classic example of why people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. 

And oh, by the way, Limbaugh is a lot smarter than either Maher or Schultz.  Unlike them, he can keep an audience without resorting to the lowest form of potty language humor.  Ultimately, neither Maher nor Schultz is likely to stay on the air if they have to rely on their non-existent skills to hold an audience.

TDM

There was an amazing article on MSNBC.com today.  It basically is an admission that the Obama Presidency is a major failure.  Of course, MSNBC tries to spin this as the result of problems outside of Obama’s control, but that will not work.  This is like excusing a coach for a losing record by complaining that the other team is deliberately trying to defeat his team.  Duh!   Following is the article:

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/13/10666856-analysis-obama-tested-by-events-outside-control

All of the Republican candidates for President have been talking about reining in the Fed.  So it should not have been a surprise that the Fed gave a rosy report today about the economy.  They have to know they are in for a tough ride if Romney, or any of the other Republicans, get elected.  It seems the stock market soared in response.  Obama and his legion of main stream media supporters immediately began singing his praises. 

However, I can’t imagine this working, or lasting.  The situation in Europe is dire.  Even China is showing strain with an increase in the trade deficit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9137130/China-has-biggest-trade-deficit-for-20-years.html

Today, President Obama accused China of breaking global trade rules by restricting exports of rare earth elements.  He is probably right, but his timing, as always, is absurd.  It will be quickly recognized as a political stunt.  China is already feeling the pinch because of the failing world economy.  Obama is naïve to think China is about to expand the export of rare earth elements so other countries can compete more effectively with Chinese manufacturers.  He also made a major mistake by publicly embarrassing China.  Odds are high that they will not respond well.

Gas prices are skyrocketing, as Obama promised.  This is hardly a surprise since he has done everything possible to prevent further drilling.  The only increase in oil production has come from leases signed by Bush or from development on private property.  Obama’s real energy policy is to force people to stop using gas by making it so expensive that there will be no alternative.  Gas is headed toward $5 and possibly $6 per gallon.  This may appeal to naïve liberals who live in New York and don’t even own a car, but doesn’t play well in Peoria.

Afghanistan is in full meltdown.  The only solution left is to withdraw our troops now, while we can.  This is one of the worst foreign policy blunders in American history.  Obama came into office promising to show Bush how it was done by winning the “necessary” war in Afghanistan.  In June 2009, we had less than 30,000 troops in Afghanistan.  Two years later, in June, 2011, we had 90,000 troops.  But Obama also implemented new rules of engagement that made it much more difficult for our troops.  Two thirds of all combat deaths in Afghanistan happened during Obama’s watch.  He is far from winning the necessary war.  Instead, he is about to leave with his tail between his legs, probably apologizing all the way to the exit.  Then, of course, he will blame everything on Bush.

In reality, Obama has made everything worse, and it is becoming impossible to ignore.  The MSNBC article is an admission of this.  Of course they are trying to shift the blame.  Ultimately, when a team continues to lose, the coach gets fired. 

Democrats are so desperate that they are trying to repeat the 2008 smear campaign against Sarah Palin.  But Palin is not even running.  Smearing her name may be great fun, but it won’t save Obama.  Recently there have been numerous main stream media pundits moaning and groaning about how we came so close to electing someone as unqualified as Sarah Palin to be Vice President.  They shudder at the thought of someone so naïve and inexperienced only a heartbeat away from the Presidency.   Well, earth to liberals:  I actually agree that Sarah Palin did not have the experience necessary to be President, but she was far more experienced than Barack Obama.  America did elect someone too naïve and inexperienced to be President.  The results have been increasingly difficult to ignore.  That is why even an Obama campaign outlet, like MSNBC, is doing failure analysis.

TDM

In case any of you had lingering doubt about the bias in our main stream media, check out the following article from Pravda. 

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/07-03-2012/120708-arizona_sheriff_obama-0/

Since Pravda is controlled by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, it is hardly an unbiased source.  However, the sad fact is that article is far more objective than any U.S. media outlet. 

If Sheriff Arpaio is wrong, the main stream media should be investigating and demanding an apology.  If he is right, then we have a President who may have participated in a felony.  Either way, this is far too important to ignore.

This is a consistent pattern with Obama.  He was BFF with admitted terrorist, William Ayers.  The media yawned.

He attended a church, for twenty years, led by a preacher who taught black liberation theology when he wasn’t screaming: “G## D### America.”  This is the same out of control radical preacher also accused the U.S. of infecting Africa with the Aids virus.  The media did not care.

He bought his home in a shady real estate deal involving Antoin Rezko.  Antoin Rezko is currently in prison for bribing public officials.  No one in the media noticed.

Video tapes have surfaced showing Barack Obama embracing yet another racist black professor.  The media wonders why this is a problem?

But there is something missing from Barack Obama’s background.  He is missing any friends who are not left wing radicals.

In the meantime, no one appears to be the least bit interested in the Sheriff Arpaio investigation.   I used to think one of the main strengths of this country was the freedom of the press.  But what good is freedom of the press if, if the main stream media is unable or unwilling to report objectively.  George Bush was hardly a popular man in Russia, so the following comment by Pravda is very revealing:

One can easily imagine the reaction of the press had this scenario been about George W. Bush in 2004.

The Pravda article is a slap in the face to the entire main stream media.  But, based on past performance, I doubt seriously they will even notice.

TDM

Obama has spent a lot of time recently apologizing for the U.S. military burning some copies of the Quran.  Following is the link to an article about this in Politico:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73201.html

“I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident.  I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies.:  The error ws inadvertent, I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible.”

If Obama had done any investigation he would have quickly learned that “the Qurans had been confiscated from Afghan prisioners at Bagram and were thought to have contained coded messages.”

http://english.sina.com/world/2012/0223/442818.html

Obama could have pointed out that it was the Afghan prisoners themselves who defiled the Quran by apparently using it as a code book.  But, like far too many of our politicians, apologizing for the slightest hint of criticism of Islam is par for the course.

I understand why Obama did this.  The Arab world has a nasty habit of rioting and killing people whenever they feel Islam or the Quran has been disrespected.  Obama was just trying to prevent even worse violence.  This is the same justification for all those well-intentioned people who carefully tiptoe around any criticism of Islam.  I wonder if they realize that these apologies never actually work.

This reminds me of the time we were having problems with our dog, Molly, barking too loudly at visitors.  I was talking to a dog trainer and mentioned that the best solution we found was to give Molly a dog treat to shut her up.  He smiled at me and said, “So…you reward her for bad behavior?”  Ouch!  Sometimes the truth hurts.  (She no longer gets a treat for barking.)

This is exactly what the entire world is doing with regard to Islam.  The more violent and inappropriately Muslims respond to the slightest hint of criticism, the more fearful people are of pointing out the obvious problems.  The entire world has been intimidated into silence. 

Christians, on the other hand, have a tradition of not responding violently.  As a result, Christians are considered to be fair game.   Go ahead, Mr. Maher, produce a program ridiculing Islam.  See what response that generates!

In May, 2009, a Christian church sent Bibles printed in the two most common Afghan languages to Afghanistan.  The military confiscated the Bibles and then publically burned them.  The explanation given by the Obama administration for the desecration of the Bibles was:  “troops at posts in war zones are required to burn their trash.”  The Christian community should have been outraged, but that is not our style.  Following is the link to a CNN story on this event:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/

Obama not only didn’t feel any need to apologize to Christians for burning Bibles, he apologized to the Afghan people on behalf of the Christians.  How dare Christians promote their faith to someone else?  Who do we think we are?  Why can’t we be more understanding of other cultures, like the Muslims respect Christianity?

I don’t know if Obama did these things because he is a secret Muslim, a Muslim supporter, or merely because he is a naïve coward.  Regardless of the reason, the result is identical.  We are rewarding bad behavior with more genuflecting and apologies.

Isn’t it about time Christians started standing up and protesting those who defile Christianity?  How can a President of the United States apologize for burning a Quran, after burning Bibles?  How many insults do we need to endure before enough is enough? 

Here is my simple request:  Mr. President, we understand why you apologized for our troops burning the Quran.  We agree that all religions should be respected.  How about a little respect for the religion you call your own.  How about an apology for burning those Bibles in 2009?  How about apologizing for demanding the Catholic Church fund contraceptives in violation of their religious principles?  You’re obviously very good at apologizing, Mr. President, give it a shot!

TDM

Sherriff Arpaio held a press conference today where he said there is probable cause to believe that Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud.  Sheriff Arpaio is no dummy.  He chose his words carefully.  He did not say that he doubted where Obama was born.  What he said was that he had probable cause to question the authenticity of the documents. 

 Naturally the folks at WND.com are hyperventilating:

 http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joes-posse-probable-cause-obama-certificate-a-fraud/

Unfortunately, this is far from conclusive.  I suspect that everything the Sheriff says has some merit and I am equally convinced that in the end, we will find out that Obama was born in Hawaii.

No matter what document Obama produces, it generates more questions than answers.  His supporters try to spin this as a racist witch hunt by wild-eyed zealots who would never be satisfied with any documentation.  They are probably right about some of the birthers, but there are legitimate questions about the documents that have been released.  These problems are all too real.

It doesn’t help that the main stream media is incapable of reporting this story straight up.  The following CBS report is typical:

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/03/01/arpaio-im-just-doing-my-job-investigating-obamas-birth-certificate/

The entire article is based on a premise that is not true.  CBS claims that “Hawaii officials have repeatedly confirmed Obama’s citizenship. “  They pretend there are no legitimate concerns regarding the documents released by Obama.  Actually the State of Hawaii has given conflicting and misleading comments on several occasions.  And there are legitimate concerns with regard to the documents released by Obama.  No official from Hawaii has ever handed out a document and said:  “here is Obama’s birth certificate.”  No official from Hawaii has ever said that the document released by Obama is a true and accurate copy of his birth certificate.  If they did, this story would be done.  This is more complicated than the main stream media is reporting. 

The pattern is clear.  The documents released by Obama never completely pass the smell test.  Eventually he produces another copy of another document.  But he never releases the actual document; instead we get a “photo copy” or a blurred picture.  This is like watching a sleight of hand magician.  They are brilliant at making it appear like they are showing you the real thing, while actually showing you nothing at all.  The only “witnesses” ever called up on stage are either people chosen from the audience who are clearly too stupid to ask the right questions, or shills in on the act.  This is the identical strategy used by Obama.  No one competent ever gets to see the real document. 

I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii.  Not because of these documents, but because that makes the most sense.  The theory of him being born in Kenya has more holes than his birth certificate.  It doesn’t make sense, because his parents never lived together as husband and wife.  Based on what we know about Obama’s father, the last thing he would have done is bring his white wife back to Kenya to deliver her baby.  For one thing, he already had a wife in Kenya.

One must assume that the people handling this for Obama are somewhat competent.  They could easily produce a clear copy of his birth certificate.  But they never do that.  Instead they always release another photo copy or picture that leaves more than ample room for doubt.  I believe this is deliberate.  I suspect it is either because they want the story to go on, or because they have something really important to hide.  Otherwise, this is just silly.  They may be Kool-Aid drinking left-wing socialist radicals, but they are still sharper than this. 

While I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii, I cannot ignore the obvious fact that there has been a deliberate and sustained cover-up.  At best, this is merely a blatant disregard for the American public.  At worst, Obama is desperately trying to hide “something” that really matters.   I don’t know which is worse.

TDM

In 1954 Abraham Maslow published his famous triangle showing the Hierarchy of Human Needs.  The following article explains the triangle:

 http://www.nicholasm.com/_mgxroot/page_10680.html

It is extremely important to understand the impact of Maslow’s triangle on elections.  History has taught us this on many occasions.  Liberalism never works.  Liberals always raise taxes.  This never works. 

Liberals always increase entitlements.  That works brilliantly in terms of keeping them in power.  There is always an oversupply of people willing to take free stuff.  But eventually liberals make promises they cannot keep.  They delay in recognizing the obvious, so they borrow more money and pretend the problem is solved.  The result is less revenue, more debt, and more people demanding free stuff.  Ultimately, this doesn’t work either.  Liberals always increase regulation.  They believe that true fairness in society is only possible when the benevolent government decides who wins and who loses.  The net result is those who actually do things are ripped off so those who don’t benefit.  Eventually we run out of those who do.   In every country where the government tried to solve problems with more regulations, the economy has eventually tanked.  So, increased regulation never works either.  Nothing liberals do actually works. 

At some point the failure of liberalism is undeniable.   People are often fooled, for a while, by the pipe dream of liberal promises.  But ultimately none of this matters when people fall into the lower two tiers of Maslow’s triangle. 

Margaret Thatcher, who came to power as the result of a failed liberal government, said it very well:

“Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess.  They always run out of other people’s money.  It’s quite a characteristic of them.”

Obama has run out of money.  Gas prices are going to skyrocket and he can’t do anything to stop it.  He may release the strategic oil reserves, but that will have minimal impact.  He may try to increase the tax on oil company profits, but that won’t work either.  Obama can’t tax his way out of this and he doesn’t have the money to pay for everyone’s gas.  The simple truth is that we can’t come close to producing the oil we need.  Our current production is up solely because of decisions made during the Bush administration.  Even so, we still get about half of our oil from other countries.  Obama has blocked new drilling and his ban on deep water drilling resulted in oil rigs being moved to places like Brazil.  These are very expensive rigs and they can’t be built over night.  It will take years to recover from the blunders of the Obama administration.  Even if Obama woke up overnight, started relaxing environmental rules and gave tax incentives to oil companies, it is too late.  We are out of time and soon we will be out of oil.

We are going to see $5 a gallon gas in the near future and it could get worse.  In addition, there are likely to be shortages.  Just imagine people sitting in their cars, waiting for hours, so they can buy gas at $6 a gallon.  In the meantime they will be listening to people on the radio, like Rush Limbaugh, explaining why it’s Obama’s fault.  If you think I am imagining things, then reflect back on the Carter years. 

I call it the “Maslow Toss Rule.”  When liberal muck things up bad enough, even the entitlement crowd realizes you can’t eat false promises.  This is why Liberals always get voted out of power in the end.  It is why liberals were voted out of power in Canada.  It is why they were voted out of power in Great Britain.  It is why they were voted out of power in France.  It is why they were voted out of power in Germany.  It is why they were voted out of power in Wisconsin, and Michigan and Ohio and Louisiana.  It is why Republicans ran the table in 2010.  As recently as 2008 Democrats had increased their majority in the House, they had secured a veto proof majority in the Senate, and they had elected Barack Obama President of the United States.  No one, I repeat, no one, would even estimate when Republicans might once again get a sniff at power.  But liberals are always liberals, which means they never learn and they always try to govern as liberals.  That is why they always fail.  The only question is how long this will take and how much damage is done in the interim.  It is why even Republicans with their traditional ability to try and seize defeat from the jaws of victory, will still do well in 2012.  Obama is not only going to lose, he is going to get trounced.  Maslow Toss.

TDM

If a Republican dares mention the slightest doubt about the theory of evolution the main stream media will immediately label him or her as too stupid to hold public office.  Democrats are never even asked the question.  Democrats are automatically assumed to be brighter than Republicans.  That is why they are Democrats.  This is similar to the way that Republicans are treated with regard to racism.  All Republicans are assumed to be racist, and all Democrats are assumed to be civil rights heroes.  The fact that the Democratic Party was the party of racism for most of its history is never discussed.

Following is the latest and greatest attempt by the evolution crowd to explain the origin of life:

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/21/evolution-may-have-created-life_n_1290810.html?ref=science&icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-sb-bb%7Cdl9%7Csec3_lnk2%26pLid%3D137266

If you read this article, two things become very clear.  First, scientists have no clue as to how life began.  The only thing they know for sure is that current theories don’t hold up under scrutiny.  Second, they keep searching and searching for some plausible explanation.  If they already know the answer, why the desperate search for more information?  They are willing to cling desperately to the most wildly implausible explanations.  This is because they start with the assumption that this had to have happened as the result of a lucky accident.  Otherwise, they would be forced to consider creative design and they just can’t abide that.

This latest theory is laughably improbable.  Not only do you need a miraculous accidental combination of amino acids at the start, you need a series of miraculous events because: “it wouldn’t be possible to do it all at once.”  Really?

So, who’s the dummy?  The person who believes in the events less likely than finding a winning Mega Millions Lottery ticket miraculously appearing on your laser printer as the result of a once in a life time power failure?  Or the person who says:  “this is just far too complicated to dismiss as some kind of unexplainable accident?”

Our kids have been taught the theory of evolution as solid science since the Scopes trial.  Heaps of scorn are dumped on the heads of any teachers daring to challenge the theory of evolution.   Yet, polls consistently show that only about 40% of Americans buy the theory of evolution.  There are differences in results from Gallop Polls and from Pew Polls, but both show the percentage of Americans who favor creationism at about 43%.  If evolution is so darn obvious, why don’t more people believe it?

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/02/11/gallup-darwins-birthday-poll-fewer-than-four-in-ten-believe-in-evolution

I wish just one candidate would have the courage to say the obvious.  “I don’t believe in the theory of evolution because I just don’t have enough faith to buy the improbable chain of events necessary to make the theory work.”  We need to understand the difference between real science, which is unafraid to look at things as they actually are, and politically correct science, which lurches from one improbable theory after another in a desperate attempt to ignore the obvious reality of a God who created the universe. 

Frankly, I don’t care if someone wants to swallow the theory of evolution hook, line and sinker.  After all, we all should have the freedom to believe what we want.  But I am sick and tired of those who consider themselves intellectually superior to anyone who disagrees with them. 

TDM

The Obama administration knows it is in deep trouble.  Contrary to the marginally positive reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the economy is doing poorly and shows no signs of life.  Gas is headed toward $5 per gallon and will set up a rise in inflation that we haven’t seen since the Carter years.  Ultimately, things are so bad that no matter whom the Republicans run, he will look like a much better choice than Obama.

But, the Obama administration has a plan.  It is the same plan used by LBJ in 1964 and used by Bill Clinton when faced with impeachment; attack someone.  There are only a few candidates available.  Syria has some potential, but attacking Libya didn’t do much for Obama, so neither will Syria.  But, wait!  What about Iran?  That’s it!  Let’s attack Iran!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/17/us-officials-iran-sanctions-military-action

According to this report, the administration plans to try diplomacy to solve the problem with Iran and if that doesn’t work, they will take military action.  They are planning on attacking Iran in September or October.  From a military standpoint, this makes no sense.  It gives Iran several more months to harden sites and prepare defenses.  Why continue to try diplomacy that we know will not work?  But from a political standpoint, it is brilliant.  Obama can go on national television and announce that he has launched an air assault on Iran.  There will be immediate calls from the main stream media to rally around the Commander in Chief during a time of war.  We will hear solemn editorials about his courageous decision.  There will be stern warnings about risking a change in leadership during a time of war.  Democrats may even sing “God Bless America” again.  If Republicans refuse to back the President, they will be eviscerated by the main stream media.   The Republican candidate will go down in flames and the “Anointed One” will coast to re-election.  That, I’m thinking, could be the plan.

It’s hardly the first time a Democratic President has used this tactic to get out of hot water.  In 1964, Lyndon Johnson was in trouble in his campaign against Barry Goldwater.  Then the Gulf of Tonkin incident took place and Johnson basically declared war on North Vietnam.  We now know that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a minor event, probably provoked by the U.S., and definitely exaggerated by the Johnson Administration.  The adoring main stream media fell for it hook, line and sinker.  Goldwater had no choice but to support the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.  At the same time Johnson was manufacturing a war, his campaign was trying to demonize Goldwater as a crazed hawk who risked nuclear war.  Goldwater never knew what hit him.  He was slaughtered in the 1964 election.

Over the next four years LBJ grossly mismanaged the war.  But, in spite of himself we were on the verge of defeating North Vietnam.  Personal memoirs from top North Vietnamese Generals showed that they were ready to quit.  Who can blame them?  The U.S. military is a formidable force and it was beating them on every front.  The Viet Cong had been decimated during the blunder of the 1968 Tet Offensive.  But then the anti-war movement took off in the United States along with the “Hey Hey, LBJ, How many kids did you kill today?” chants.  Johnson panicked and gave up on his re-election bid.  Then, just before the election, Johnson pulled the ultimate October surprise.  He unilaterally stopped the bombardment of the North just before the election as a last-minute desperate attempt to get Hubert Humphrey elected.  It didn’t work.  But as soon as Richard Nixon was elected, the Democratic congress voted to cut off all funds for the war if Nixon resumed bombing of the North.  Nixon went along until the North Vietnamese kept balking at the peace talks.  Finally, in frustration, Nixon ordered the B52s to bomb the North and within days the North Vietnamese gave up and signed a cease fire.  Our POWs came home.  Several of them reported rejoicing at the sound of the B52 missions, because they knew this would end the war. 

If Nixon had not been forced to resign, South Vietnam might be free today.  But when Ford became President, Democrats immediately moved to guaranteed defeat.  They not only refused to let Ford prosecute the war, they wouldn’t let him provide desperately needed military equipment or even financial aid to South Vietnam.  North Vietnamese troops invaded the South by driving unopposed on paved highways.  One U.S. Carrier group could have halted the invasion.  Instead, we did nothing and watched the people stupid enough to trust us get slaughtered.

Clinton did it twice.  On December 15, 1999, 11 “moderate” Republicans in the house announced they would vote for impeachment. Clinton had been dithering since February, 1998, with regard to the need to bomb Iraq to slow down Saddam Hussein. Clinton ordered the bombing attacks on Iraq on December 16, 1999, and Democrats immediately moved to postpone the impeachment vote.  We were warned about impeaching a President during a time of war.  There was no emergency; the situation in Iraq had not changed very much during the prior 10 months.  The only emergency was the pending impeachment of Bill Clinton.  Republicans did rally around Clinton, but on December 19, 1999, they impeached him anyway.

Clinton did it again in March, 1999.  He had been narrowly acquitted in his impeachment trial, but on March 18, 1999, Deputy Independent Counsel Hickman Ewing testified at the Susan McDougal trial that he had written a “rough draft indictment of first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton” because he doubted the truthfulness of her testimony during a deposition.  The U.S. Senate was willing to ignore perjury, but the courts were not.  Pressure continued to build for Clinton.  He was scheduled for a hearing in front of Judge Susan Webber Wright.  She eventually found him in willful contempt of court on April 12, 1999. 

Clinton desperately needed a distraction.  He found it with the attack on Yugoslavia, which he announced in a Press conference on March 24, 1999.  One of the big arguments for the attack was the allegation that 100,000 civilians had been slaughtered.  Other people made even more wildly exaggerated and inaccurate claims.  But after the war, they only found about 2,108 graves and it is not clear all of these were the result of the alleged ethnic cleansing.  In reality, the U.S. found a lot more evidence of WMDs in Iraq after the war than they did of ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia. 

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/WhereBodiesBuried_NATO.htm

The main stream media, continues to falsely pretend that George W. Bush lied about the WMD in Iraq, even though leading Democrats like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton made even stronger statements prior to the war.  Yet they have been deafly silent about the blatant lies made by the Clinton administration prior to the unnecessary assault on Yugoslavia.  They also ignore the fact that Clinton never sought UN support or even support from the U.S. Congress.  The only real emergency was the self-inflicted political crisis facing Bill and Hillary Clinton.

In view of this, does anyone really think Obama would hesitate to use the situation in Iran for blatant political advantage?  Does anyone really think that the news media will not hail the conquering hero much like they did for Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton?   

There have been many rumors that Israel does not intend to wait until a more politically convenient opportunity to do the necessary.  It should be obvious to everyone that while the Obama administration is unwilling to do anything, at the moment, they appear to be equally determined to stop Israel from taking action.  When you think about it, the worst case scenario for Obama would be for Israel to solve this problem without Obama’s help.

I fervently pray that I have this wrong.  I would like to think that no President of the United States would ever put personal political interests above national security.  I would like to think that, but the timing of the actions taken by Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton force me to consider the unthinkable. 

Wag the dog?  Decide for yourself.

TDM

Republicans are trying desperately to lose the most important election in our lifetime.  The only thing worse than listening to liberals dismiss the entire class of Republican candidates for President as weak sniveling fools; is the fact that they have so much ammunition.  So far the primary has consisted primarily of one candidate or another surging to the lead, only to disintegrate into flames from self-inflicted wounds.  It is not so much that they get shot down; it is that they are such easy targets. 

Now we are at the point of choosing between Mitt Romney, who no one really seems to want, and Rick Santorum, who has primarily been the beneficiary of watching far more capable candidates drop all around him.  I would greatly fear the re-election of Barack Obama, except that Democrats continue to be Democrats.

The latest case in point is the idiotic decision to try and force the Catholic Church to pay for contraceptives.  What on earth were they thinking?  This is so bad that Candy Crowley almost laughed at Obama’s new Chief of Staff when he tried to explain this:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/02/13/cnn-asks-obama-chief-staff-youre-observant-jew-so-no-qualms-presidents-v#

LEW: So you know, I have to say that the solution that we came up with puts no religious institution in the position where it either has to pay for or facilitate the provision of the benefits they find objectionable. If the issue is should women have access to all form of preventive care, including contraception, we believe the answer to that is yes.

CROWLEY: Can you say, though, with a straight face that the insurance company’s going to pick up the cost of this?

This is why Obama will lose.  Democrats just do not get it.  The real issue here isn’t religious freedom, although that is front and center.  The issue is that Democrats just cannot help themselves from trying to solve all problems by spending more money, and they are running out of money.  At a time when we are facing record deficits, Democrats decided it was a good idea to provide free birth control for everyone. 

Today, Obama warned of skyrocketing gas prices and then tried to explain that this was good news as it was proof of recovery.  Not many people are going to buy that nonsense.  If Obama had a clue about anything, he would just let Republicans pass legislation and grudgingly sign it into law.  That is what Clinton did.  If things get better, Obama would get the credit.  If things got worse, congress would get the blame.  But Obama insists on doing things his way, which is always to raise taxes and then waste the additional revenue on gifts to friends who don’t need it.  That has never worked in the past, and it won’t work now.

The best campaigner, for the Republicans, in U.S. History, is Barack Hussein Obama.  He is the gift that keeps on giving.  As long as he continues campaigning for re-election, the Republican candidate will be in good shape.  Our candidates are fully capable of running a lousy campaign.  The main stream media will continue to fawn over Obama.  But, ultimately, it will be nearly impossible to out duel Obama in a mental battle for the title of most incompetent.  

TDM

The recent interview with John F. Kennedy’s old “mistress” is a disturbing story of raw abuse of power.  Those who were paying attention already knew that Jack Kennedy was a notorious womanizer with rampant reports of wild parties in the White House and extensive use of professional call girls.  This most recent revelation is particularly disturbing, because it was with a former White House intern.  I think it comes perilously close to power rape.  He intimidated her into having sex with him purely by the power of his position.  She was hardly a mistress, just another in a long list of people to use and discard.

But the real problem is far more serious than the raw abuse of power.  John Kennedy also had an affair with a woman known as Ellen Rometsch.  Following is her biography from Spartacus Educational:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKrometsch.htm

I have seen numerous reports about Ellen Rometsch, even though no one in the main stream media has ever touched the story.  They should have, because it involved a serious risk to our national security.  Ellen Rometsch was not the only one; there were also rumors of involvement by Mariella Novotny and Suzy Chang, possibly with both Jack and Robert Kennedy.  These women were allegedly involved in the sex spy ring that brought down British War Minister John Profumo.  At least the British had the decency to take action.

In the United States, this was quickly covered up.  At the time of Kennedy’s assassination, the Senate was actively investigating Bobby Baker.  Baker owned the Qorum club, which was the place used by the women described above to influence politicians.  If any of you do the slightest bit of research on Bobby Baker you will be shocked at the allegations.  The following is a link to an education forum post about this subject:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15790

An interesting side note, Carole Tyler was called to testify about Bobby Baker, but she refused based on the 5^th amendment.  She apparently thought Baker would leave his wife and marry her, but in 1965 she became angry when it was obvious that this would never happen.  She died in a “convenient” plane crash on May 10, 1965.  Even more interesting are reports that one of the women who lived in the house with her was Mary Jo Kopechne.  Mary Jo Kopechne died in the famous Teddy Kennedy car crash on Chappaquiddick Island in June, 1969. 

I have no way of knowing how much of the information contained in these links is accurate.  I do know that there are multiple sources reporting the same, or similar, information.  One of the most interesting, and frightening, elements of the story by Mimi Alford is when she said the following:

One such visit occurred during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the 13-day-long standoff in October 1962 between the United States and the Soviet Union. According to Alford, Kennedy told her that “I’d rather my children red than dead.”

Following is the link to the Huffington Post article that was the source of that information:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/mimi-alford-jfk-affair_n_1257759.html

If this is true, then we are extremely fortunate Kennedy said that to a naïve American girl rather than an alleged East German spy like Ellen Rometsch.  It is frightening to imagine how different our world would be if Nikita Khrushchev knew that Kennedy would fold. 

This story has been covered up from the start.  It appears as though a lot of people in Washington D.C. knew about this, but did not pursue it because it involved two U.S. Presidents, Kennedy and Johnson.  In any event, the Mimi Alford story is a lot more serious than any one admits.  It is a glimpse back in time that reveals some very ugly facts about our past.

Even today the main stream media continues to praise Jack Kennedy and has been quick to discount the significant of this story.  Barbara Walters bragged about her shameless affair with Senator Edward Brooke, but heaped scorn on Mimi Alford for daring to tell her story.    It is hard to tell if those who continue to heap lavish praise on John F. Kennedy are ill informed, or they simply do not care.  In either case, the truth has been papered over with the illusion of Camelot. 

TDM