I first heard this on Laura Ingraham’s radio show this morning on my way into work.  I was just astounded.

Now, I know I’m hardly a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination, but can we say mistrial or tainted jury after this remark by President Obama?  This was from Politico:

During a round of network television interviews conducted during Obama’s visit to China, the president was asked about those who find it offensive that Mohammed will receive all the rights normally accorded to U.S. citizens when they are charged with a crime.

 

“I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him,” Obama told NBC’s Chuck Todd.

It gets better, as the backtracker in chief was given the opportunity to clarify his remarks.

When Todd asked Obama if he was interfering in the trial process by declaring that Mohammed will be executed, Obama, a former constitutional law professor, insisted that he wasn’t trying to dictate the result.

 

“What I said was, people will not be offended if that’s the outcome. I’m not pre-judging, I’m not going to be in that courtroom, that’s the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury,” Obama said. “What I’m absolutely clear about is that I have complete confidence in the American people and our legal traditions and the prosecutors, the tough prosecutors from New York who specialize in terrorism.”

So, let me get this straight.  You lawyer types help me out with these questions.

1. If the point was to give these scumbags full Constitutional rights and a fair trial, has the process not already been tainted when the President of the United States pretty much guarantees a conviction and execution?  Isn’t this more fodder for the ACLU-types to scream that there’s no way KSM can get a fair trial?
2. If the terrorists weren’t mirandized, then does that mean that normal citizens can get arrested at any time now without their Miranda rights read to them?
3. Will the prosecutors be forced to share evidence such as classified military intelligence with the defense attorney so unpatriotic to defense these scumbags?
4. How will we be able to protect witnesses that will testify for the prosecution?  Are there plans in place to make sure that they or their families aren’t threatened or killed during this fiasco?
5. And finally, is this a hidden attempt to put the Bush administration on trial and to open up the door for them to be tried on war crimes?

It sounds like the “fair trial” has already been tainted.  And none of my concerns, although I’m just a simpleton conservative redneck, have been asked by the media, nor even addressed in detail from this administration.    How the hell does he not even think he’s putting us in danger?

To borrow from a well broadcasted line from the 2008 campaign, I can now honestly say for the first time in my adult life, I am absolutely ashamed of my president for allowing this to happen.  Ashamed.  I couldn’t even say that about Bill Clinton.

Bloomberg ran a pretty good peice on Joe Lieberman’s opposition to Obamacare.  It also outlines the attacks that are soon to come his way from Obamacare supporters.

“Senator Lieberman’s actions represent the fact that he’s acting more like the senator from Aetna than the senator from Connecticut,” said Lacy MacAuley, a spokeswoman for Mobilization for Health Care for All, a group that supports extending government insurance to everyone.

Basically, you oppose Obamacare, and you’re an ally of those evil insurance companies that are rolling around in profits rather than making sure your medical bills are covered.  The most telling piece of the article, however, comes later on.

Connecticut’s other U.S. senator, Democrat Chris Dodd, has raised twice as much from the insurance industry, $2.3 million since 1989, including $1.2 million for his 2010 re-election campaign. Dodd, first elected in 1980, supports the public option and is a member of the Health committee, one of two Senate panels that wrote health-care legislation.

Lieberman, along with other Senators such as Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, and Chuck Grassley, are the targets of a website called the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.  This is just part of the money coming in to slime opponents and brags about attempting to primary them should they not go far enough to the left.  The website uses familiar tones, colors, and fonts from a recent presidential campaign as well, though it’s officially not tied in to any candidate.  If you’re one of the three people who watch MSNBC, you’ll see they get a lot of publicity.

In short, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, and Mary Landrieu, be warned; the primary vultures are hovering over you to swoop in for the kill if you decided to not be bought.

Just saw a link to this video on Drudge.

When the Obama indoctrination work hard, stay in school video was shown, I was glad that the school district my kids go to did not show it.  I still make it a point to get to know my kids’ teachers, and try to prepare them for the time that an NEA hack shoves left wing ideology down their throats.  Hacks like the teacher in this video need to be disciplined, or even fired.

If this teacher were in my kids’ district, I would demand an apology.  These kids have no business being used as a toy to stroke this teacher’s political ego.

Kathleen Sebelius, Ken Salazar, Janet Napolitano, and even John Huntsman have something in common with Sarah Palin.  They have all left their elected political posts to fulfill a “higher calling,” or at least a position in which they feel they can do more for the country.

We all know the left won’t attack Sebelius, Salazar, and Napolitano.  Huntsman will get a free pass because he’s a Republican working for the worst national security/foreign policy/economic disaster since Jimmy Carter.  We also all know that the left will attack Sarah Palin for sneezing in their direction; but what I just cannot get is why people on the right feel the need to dogpile and join the club.

Palin is right; she’s not only held to a different standard by the liberals and their media foot soldiers, but also by Republicans as well.  And since a lot in the GOP are so anxious to throw her under the bus much like they did to President Bush, becoming a registered independent is starting to sound much more appealing to me.

Is her resignation unconventional and risky?  Of course.  And she might not even want to run for President.  However she’ll be in high demand for campaigning and fundraising, and I sincerely hope that those who threw her under the bus don’t cry when she tells them she has better things to do with her time, because then they’ll realize what trying to fit in with the “cool” crowd has finally cost them.

Democrats are fawning all over Alren Specter, like he’s the new Jim Jeffords…..oh wait.

Look, Arlen Specter leaving the Republica n party is a great start.  There are consequences to face, of course, but it’s time for Specter and the like (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, take notice) to get the hell out and join the side they really want to be a part of.  By this time, we know that this isn’t the first time Specter switched parties for political gain, and his strategy of becoming a Democrat to defeate Pat Toomey may show him he’ll have no job in Washington waiting for him no matter what he registered as.

Right now, conservatives are getting trashed in the MSM for not allowing “moderates” in their presence.  You see, I think the term “moderate” is thrown around way too much in both political parties.  For example, they like to call Ben Nelson (Democrat from Nebraska) a moderate just because he’s anti-abortion (supposedly).  He voted for the stimulus bill, he’ll vote for the budget, he supports tax increases, and was instrumental in only allowing some of Bush’s judicial nominees (along with McCain) in that gang of 14 mess.  Is Ben Nelson a moderate or conservative Democrat for going along with the biggest increase in government expansion in history?  Of course not. 

On the Republican side, they throw out Rudy Giuliani’s name as “moderate.”  Giuliani opposes tax increases, opposes nationalized health care, actually wants to kill terrorists, and reign in government spending.  Because of his stance on abortion and gay marriage, he’s a moderate?  I would venture to say Giuliani is more conservative than a lot of beltway GOP’ers.

So I ask, with Specter supporting the bailouts, supporting the stimulus, wanting to treat terrorists better than our unborn children, supporting nationalized healthcare, and fastening his lips to Obama’s rear, he’s a moderate?  Sounds pretty liberal to me.  He probably would have supported everything Obama would have asked for even if he stayed registered as a Republican for the sake of getting re-elected!

I say this; don’t let the door hit your rear on the way out, Senator Specter.  You’ll find come next November, you’ll be yet another unemployed Democrat joining your good buddy Harry Reid.

From FOXNews.com:

President Obama says he’s considering whether to deploy National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, after Texas Gov. Rick Perry made an urgent call fort 1,000 more “boots on the ground” to deal with the growing violence. 

The president weighed the option during a meeting with regional reporters Wednesday afternoon. 

“We’re going to examine whether and if National Guard deployments would make sense and under what circumstances they would make sense,” Obama said, according to an account by McClatchy Newspapers. “I don’t have a particular tipping point in mind. … I think it’s unacceptable if you’ve got drug gangs crossing our borders and killing U.S. citizens.”

No kidding?  What is there to weigh?  Why not have a tipping point?  And why isn’t his DHS Secretary, Janet Napolitano, on top of this?  I forgot.  She doesn’t want to make the fence bigger out of fear someone just might build a bigger ladder.

First, why were conservatives getting attacked for wanting the border shut down with Mexico, supporting the Minutemen, and throwing the idea out there to put the military on the border in the first place?

Second, how the hell can we actually believe that this gutless coward would actually want to do something about the border?  He does, after all, favor amnesty, favored giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, and wants to strip our military down in Jimmy Carter-like fashion.  Another thing to consider is that if Obama does this, then he’ll run the political risk of alienating the Hispanic voters, and considering the Democrats want open borders with their registration tables down there, don’t count on this gutless coward doing anything. 

I think this will get a lot more run in the media to cover up his economic stupidity.

Pardon my harsh language about this guy, but I’m six ways from pissed off (sorry again) about this article.

Marlo Saab bought a $555,000, two-family home in Queens three years ago – no money down.

No money down on a $555,000, two-family home?  That should be your first red flag right there…….

When he bought the Jamaica Hills house, Saab got an 80/20 mortgage – splitting his borrowing between two lenders, IndyMac and Countrywide – for a total of $3,400 in monthly payments.

$3400 a month might be affordable for some people, but…….

He makes $80,000 a year and says he has a healthy credit rating. The Saabs have rental income and they’ve paid off their car.

However, Saab’s overtime has been slashed. His wife is looking for work. The couple also have renovated their home and spend $10,000 a year to send their two kids to Catholic school.

Saab has racked up $70,000 in credit card bills and borrows from family and friends to make his mortgage. He has never missed a payment, but he’s not sure how much longer that can last.

So, let me get this right.  He makes $80,000 a year, has paid of his car, and even gets income from rental properties, and he still can’t afford to make the payments on his house?  Oh yeah.  His wife didn’t work.  He racked up $70,000 in cerdit card charges (and if you think that was all in the name of mortgage payments, then I’d like to know who wrote that perscription for you), and he’s dropping $10,000 a year on sending his kids to private school.  I can understand the private school thing, but don’t you think you’re spending a lot more money than you can afford when you live in a $555,000, two-family home on one income?  Where the hell has common sense escaped to these days?

He even has appealed to Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn/Queens) to intervene.

Michael Moskowitz of Manhattan-based lender Equity Now said Saab appears to be a good candidate for aid under the President’s proposal.

“[Obama is] trying to take a deserving person whose mortgage is worth more than the property is and refinance them,” he said. “It’s not good to have people default. It’s better to [give] them a lower rate.”

So, this chucklehead overextends his finances, cries to his Congressman, and he’s getting a bailout for being stupid.  And the only thing he’s “deserving” of is a swift kick in the rear.  Our tax dollars shouldn’t be going out to bail out anyone, let alone an irresponsible moron who obviously has no clue in how to manage finances.

You know what?  I lost my job last March, have been working in a contract position since last May which will come to an end in six weeks, and have been busting my butt to find a full-time job.  My wife and I put a down payment on our $120,000 house in the western part of Omaha, never missed a mortgage payment (and never will), and send our kids to public schools.  Mr. Saab will now get taxpayer money to help him with his mortgage, and all I get is a tax cut of just $13.00 a week for my trouble.

I don’t want or need government help, but it’s nice to see how this version of “Amerika” works now.  Do the right things, and let your politicians screw you. Do the wrong things, and let your politicians help you.

With the 2010 midterm elections coming up, Republicans have some golden opportunities to make some serious dents in the majority Democrats hold in both the House and Senate.  Harry Reid is vulnerable, even though he’s doing everything in his power to work with his lawyer buddies to get every portential Republican opponent indicted.  There are some “Blue Dog” Democrats that are vulnerable, and I suspect there will be more, since they aren’t as fiscally conservative as advertised.

With the recruitment of Republican candidates to go up against these Democrats in 2010, there are bound to be differences on certain issues.  The question that I have been struggling with, as I’m sure you will be when the primaries hit us, is how much social liberalism can we handle?

Initially, I supported Rudy Giulliani for President.  I know that will rub some of you the wrong way, given his views on abortion and gay marriage, but when he came out and said that he opposed partial birth abortion and didn’t believe we should have taxpayer funded abortions, that eased my concerns about him enough to throw my support behind the person who I thought was best suited for the Presidency.  Sadly enough for me, I had only John McCain and Ron Paul to choose from in the Nebraska primaries (I didn’t vote for either of them), as Rudy suffered from the most poorly managed campaign in GOP primary history.

With the unification of Republicans under this communist, I mean socialist, I mean ultra liberal president, this is somewhat of an exciting time for the party.  But what I’m afraid of is that while we go after new blood in the party, are we going to wind up with more Chuck Hagles, Lincoln Chaffees, Maine Sisters, Arlen Specters, and Chris Shays?  Has Michael Steele and the rest of the GOP leadership finally learned their lesson that liberl Republicans don’t win elections?

I, for one, would be willing to consider voting for a pro-choice candidate who has conservative views on national security (and I include protecting the border and a no-amnesty illegal immigration stance on this one), fiscal responsibility, and lower taxes.  Once again, I know this will agitate some of you, but this will be a tough question to answer as 2010 and 2012 grow closer and closer.  If someone believes in a strong military, lower taxes, a balanced budget/fiscal restraint, and strong national security, do we give them a pass on some of the social issues?

According to various media outlets, New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg is in the running for Commerce Secretary.  If this is true, I certainly hope the Obama administration has decided to do the proper vetting and make sure Gregg is current on his taxes, or isn’t under some sort of criminal investigation, or isn’t a lobbyist.

Gregg was a businessman in Nashua before being getting into politics, and he’s been the chairmen and is currently the ranking member on the Senate budget committee.  He’s qualified )and I think moreso than Bill Richardson was) to head up Commerce.  However, President Obama has backed out on having bipartisanship in his cabinet, with his only claim to doing so being Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.  Coincidentally, Gates isn’t even registered as a Republican.  With Commerce being open, Obama would actually be smart to appoint Gregg, but Gregg accepting the position could prove disastrous.

If Gregg is offered the position, accepts the position, and is confirmed, then that means that New Hampshire’s Governor, Democrat John Lynch, would have to appoint a replacement.  And being a Democrat, I hardly doubt Lynch would appoint a Republican to the seat.  What’s important is that after Al Franken is successful in stealing the Minnesota seat from Norm Coleman, and with Gregg in the cabinet, Lynch’s appointment would mean 60 Democrat senators, and hence the Republicans couldn’t even muster the numbers for a fillibuster.

President Obama may have fooled the majority of Americans into having them believe he’s some sort of religious icon, he can fix the economy after being sworn in, and he can restore our nation’s image by weakening our national security.  He’s already lied about public financing, his radical associations, being open and transparent, appointing Republicans to his cabinet, being bipartisan in the porkulus bill, and not having lobbyists in his administration.  What’s one more lie to the American people to make them believe he’s trying to bring the country together, although his agenda is to get his Democratic party more power so he can get anything he wants rammed through Congress with little to no opposition.

Anyone else find this as a coincidence since all House Republicans opposed the “stimulus” bill and it appears that most Senate Republicans (even though I’m sure the RINO’s like Graham, Snowe, Collins, and Hatch will latch their lips on Obama’s rear) oppose the bill as well?  This is a move not to bring the country together, but rather to tilt the scales so far in his favor that he can do whatever he wants.

The sad thing is the man who could potentially be caught in the middle, Senator Gregg.  I’m confident he can run Commerce effectively, but you know that he knows his decision would give Obama so much power he would have to consider turning it down.

Look, this may pass and Gregg might not even get approached about it.  But if this happens, we need to be responsible about letting the American people know what the true motive is behind this.