The Ass of Progress

What is going on in the Land of Lincoln?

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:30:00 +0000

Political corruption is an industry that thrives on the banks of Lake Michigan. The Daleys, Otto Kerner, George Ryan, Dan Rostenkowski, and now, Rod Blagojevich.

With all the wit and charm of a used car salesman, Blago was recorded by the feds trying to sell the senate seat vacated by Comrade Barry. Veteran FBI agents involved in the wiretaps and bugging were shocked by the outright salacious tone of Blago's sales tactics. Based on the content of the affidavit filed by the U.S. attorney he may as well have rented billboard space along I-55, dropped leaflets over downtown Chicago and robo-called every household in Cook County.

In Chicago, if you're not cheating, you're not winning. This industry has produced a fair share of bottom feeders. And now, a spawn of this revolving door has found his way to the highest office in the land. Make no mistake about it, Barry Obama is part and parcel of Chicago politics. Nobody rises to the levels he has risen in that region without writing a few IOUs along the way. How many will come due on 1/20/09?

Blago's wife Patty, the First lady of Illinois, chooses a book each month for the Children's Reading Club. Her choice for this month - How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

What he said

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:36:00 +0000

Ted Nugent is the voice of reason. Yes, you heard right. The Nuge is the most rational free thinking individual since Ronald Reagan. I just finished his book, Ted, White and Blue, and it was excellent. If I were to ever hire someone as a spokesperson it would be Uncle Ted.

He wrote an article today declaring open war on RINOs. A RINO (Republican In Name Only) is a great pretender. Someone who takes a conservative position for the sake of political expediency. They are an insult to true conservatives.

The narrow minded, intellectually flawed Comrade Obama cultists will deride Ted's stream of consciousness thinking, but that is strictly out of fear and the lack of a substantial counterargument. We need you, Ted. Now more than ever!

Buy the book here. Read the article here.

Confirmation

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:46:00 +0000

Barry can no longer duck and bob and weave. He has no plausible deniability. He has confirmed it to all of America. He intends to redistribute income as president. Watch and listen for yourself right here. I weep for the future.

Great minds think alike

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 14:54:00 +0000

I married wisely. Check out my better half's blog here.

Character Counts

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 22:41:00 +0000

I'll admit that this election is slipping away for John McCain. His campaign has had some missteps lately. They have been slow to react to events. The candidate himself has been off point and unable to connect. But, for the most part, he has been a victim of circumstance. A feeble economy is a severe drag on the party that occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

All of these events have made me more resolute. I am fully prepared to go down with the ship. But I will keep a stiff upper lip, and, as Winston Churchill said, "never, ever give up". This steadfastness is in stark contrast to the emotionally shallow left. I recall reading news articles in the days following the 2004 election about Kerry supporters, so overwhelmed with despair at Bush's reelection, flocking to psychiatrist offices by the thousands. Well, I don't have a therapist on speed dial, nor will I need one. I know a thing or two about disappointment. I'm a Philadelphia sports fan.

This brings me to another severe character flaw on the left - a severe lack of common courtesy.

CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds has spent most of the last year traveling with the Obama campaign. He recently moved over to the McCain campaign and wrote a recent article about the behind the scenes differences between the two. He writes that Obama's "national headquarters in Chicago airily dismisses complaints from journalists wondering why a schedule cannot be printed up or at least e-mailed in time to make coverage plans." He also says that "aides who deal with the national reporters on the campaign plane are often overwhelmed, overworked and un-informed about where, when, why or how the candidate is moving about."

And this little tidbit doesn't seem very environmentally friendly - "I would love to have someone from Obama's campaign explain why the entire press corps, the Secret Service, and the local police idled for two hours in a Miami hotel parking lot recently because there was nothing to do and nowhere to go." Mr. Reynolds states that incidents like this are not isolated.

He contrasts these with the McCain campaign, saying:

"The McCain folks are more helpful and generally friendly. The schedules are printed on actual books you can hold in your hand, read, and then plan accordingly. The press aides are more knowledgeable and useful to us in the news media. The events are designed with a better eye, and for the simple needs of the press corps. When he is available, John McCain is friendly and loquacious."

As for Obama's give and take with the press:

"Obama holds news conferences, but seldom banters with the reporters who've been following him for thousands of miles around the country."

Oh, and Obama's campaign plane stinks.

There is much more. I encourage you to read it here.

Hmmm, sitting around, idling, because there is nothing to do or nowhere to go. Why do I feel this is a portent of what is to come over the next four years?

CYA

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:15:00 +0000

Expectations were set low for Sarah Palin in last night's VP debate with Lunch Bucket Joe. But who set those expectations? Was it Sarah Palin? No. John McCain? No again. It was, in fact, your friendly, unbiased (sarc) mainstream media pundits. There pre-debate take was if Palin was able to walk out on stage without falling on her face, that was a victory.

This is classic Cover Your Ass mentality. Either way, if she underperforms or if she does OK, they don't see their prediction as incorrect or off the mark. But what do you say when she not only holds her own, but takes it to her opponent? What do you do when she knocks it out of the park? You get angry and demeaning!

The bitter trio over at MSNBC were caught flat-footed after Palin's excellent turn and, as most libs do when they can't counter with substantive arguments, tried to marginalize her through personal attacks.

Chris Matthews referred to her as a "dolt" for looking into the camera when responding to questions. Rachel Maddow said she looked "cartoonish". And Keith Olberman? Well, Keith just wears too much make-up to be taken seriously.

The MSNBC experiment has been an abject failure. Fox got the jump in the late 90's with the "Fair and Balanced" mantra. I'll freely admit that they lean right. But they offer dissenting opinions from the left. MSNBC saw the success over at Fox and tried to mimic this format. Except, they went left. Very left. And, in the process, got shreaded in the ratings.

How many times can you hear someone say Bush is a liar, a war criminal, a moron? Those on the left are bitter. No question about that. They're eager to point out what is wrong with this country. They look to cast blame. But they don't offer solutions, just vitriol. And who wants to listen to that? Obviously, not many.

Mad Cow

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:20:00 +0000

Enough politics and economic woe. Let's get to some real human interest stories. I think this one would be a good launching point. Enjoy!

It's a big sh#! sandwich...

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:16:00 +0000

...and we've all got to take a bite. Then we have to swallow. And finally, rinse thoroughly. The do-nothings in DC are deciding how deep to dig into somebody else's (mine and yours) pocket to bail out the ass-hats of Wall Street. The most expensive socialist mandate in recorded history is about to descend upon the masses.

When all is said and done and all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed I want to see some blood shed. Maybe not literally, but figuratively. I want names named. I want responsible parties publicly shamed. I want reputations ruined and careers destroyed. The DC pigs and their Wall Street benefactors should be forced to run the gauntlet of humiliation.

Let's not stop there. The institutes of higher learning that granted degrees to any and all at the apex of this disaster should be toppled to the ground. Those MBA's are worth as much as the meaningless paper sitting on the books of all those insolvent banks.

I've got the pitch forks. Somebody grab the torches. We've got work to do.

The Blame Game

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:48:00 +0000

So, who's to blame for the current financial crisis? The popular sentiment throught the years is to blame the party in power for economic downtimes. That would lay the blame at the feet of the Republicans. But is it really fair to make this assessment?

I came across an article published in the New York Times on September 11, 2003. It outlined a Bush administration proposal to overhaul the regulation and oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac after an independent investigation earlier that year showed manipulation in accounting to mislead investors.

The proposal was well received by both Fannie and Freddie, as well as their competitors. But not everyone was in favor. Barney, who was the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee at the time of the proposal and is now the chairman, had the following to say of the proposal:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Feel free to make your own assumptions regarding who is to blame. Read the full NYT article here. Also check out an excellent article by John Lott that delves deeper into the credit mess here.

A Man Ahead of His Time

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:30:00 +0000

This is getting entertaining. I would love to see the looks on the faces of Barry's campaign staffers each time someone sticks a microphone in front of Joe Biden. It has to be just utter pain and anguish. Lunch Bucket Joe offered the following bit of historical perspective while discussing the current financial crisis with Katie Couric:

“When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed,” Biden told Couric. “He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’”

OK. Let us disect:

1. When the stock market crashed - October 29, 1929. "Black Tuesday" as it was known. The President of the United States? Herbert Hoover, not FDR. FDR was not elected until 1932.

2. Franklin Roosevelt got on the television - Well, we've already established FDR was not president at the time. Now, the television was still in development in 1929. The first household TV sets weren't introduced for another ten years. If you happened to have a TV at the time, you wouldn't have seen FDR or Hoover anyway since there were no broadcast networks in existence.

I gotta tell you, this Biden is a godsend! And it's only September. Bravo, Joe! Bravo! Let's keep the good times rolling! I'll bet the Obama camp wishes they could sequester him and send out a body double for the debate.

Bill Hearts Sarah

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:53:00 +0000

The boy president's got a crush! Sarah makes Willy's toes curl. But, alas, the Dope from Hope isn't in the same league as this classy lady. Moose-hunting hockey mom and a juvenile sex addict? Please, Sarah wouldn't give someone the likes of Mr. Depravity a second thought. But I'm sure he's had some sleepless, sweaty nights since the Thrilla from Wasilla burst onto the scene. Better not let Hill catch you swooning!

The Patriot

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:59:00 +0000

Continuing on this theme of taxation and income redistribution, I want to focus on a statement that was made by Barry's VP pick, Joe Biden. First of all, Biden likes to refer to his working class roots and he considers himself a "lunch bucket Democrat". This couldn't be farther from the truth. His father was a car salesman and later a mid-level exec. His grandfather was a state senator in Pennsylvania. He graduated from the prestigious Archmere Academy in Delaware and then from the University of Delaware and Syracuse University law School. So spare me the cliched pulled myself up by the bootstraps storyline.

Back to my point. This morning on Good Morning America, Lunch Bucket Joe said that paying more taxes was the patriotic thing for wealthy Americans to do. He also said specifically, "We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people".

There you have it. It doesn't get much more succinct than that. They are going to take money. In other words, it is un-patriotic to keep that money you worked hard to earn and do with it as you please. We, meaning Barry and Joe, will decide what to do with that money.

Now, Joe has been known to stick his foot in his mouth from time to time, so there will be some serious spinning on this statement to deny that it represents a redistribution of income. Don't buy it. They mean what they say and say what they mean.

Neighborly Economics

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:48:00 +0000

In the continuation of Barry's much ballyhooed interview with Bill O'Reilly last night, the focus was on economics and taxation. Bill was framing Barry's tax plan as a socialist program of redistributing income from the haves to the have nots. Barry had a differing view. He describes it as follows:

"The problem is, if I am sitting pretty and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t, what’s the big deal for me to say, I’m gonna pay a little bit more? That’s neighborliness."

Translation - If you work hard and make a lot of money you should feel guilty and you must give some of it to someone who doesn't deserve it. The One has spoken!

Obama Family Values

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 14:59:00 +0000

Brother, can you spare a dime?

Interesting. Check out the story.

The Ceiling of Excellence

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:14:00 +0000

Last Friday evening I watched an interview with musician Ted Nugent on The Glenn Beck Show. Among the topics that The Nuge waxed philosophical about was something he called the "ceiling of excellence". This is akin to the mercy rule whereby someone is penalized for performing well.

The Motor City Madman provided examples, both actual and theoretical, to make his point. An actual example is the recent case of a 9 year old boy in Connecticut who was told by officials of the local little league that he couldn't pitch any longer because they said he was too good and he would frighten the other players that he played against.

I was witness to the ceiling of excellence this past Saturday. My son played his first soccer game of the season. His team got off to a fast start and scored a few quick goals. There is one boy on the team that is especially good. When he scored his 3rd goal of the game he had to come out of the game for a time because of a league rule. Also, the team had to be short a player because they were winning by several goals. Well, they continued to score even though they were shorthanded. After each successive goal they had to be short one more player until it was 6 players for the other team against 3 players for my son's team. This caused some consternation because the players on my son's team had to wait longer to get back in the game while the other team's players got much more playing time.

What is gained by this? Who benefits? What example is being set? In my opinion, much more is lost than gained and no one wins. Someone is penalized for doing well. They are basically being told that there is a limit to what you are allowed to achieve.

Artificially leveling the playing field because you believe it is helping a child's psyche can actually do the reverse. You give those that are underachieving a false sense of achievement. They won't set realistic goals and when they encounter a situation where the playing field has not been adjusted to accommodate them, they will surely fail. As for those that overachieve, they are discouraged from progressing and doing even better.

This is classic socialist ideology. This fallacy that we are all the same. This lie is perpetuated by left-leaning ideologues. We see it every day in racial and gender quotas at colleges and universities and through affirmative action. It is the very definition of a nanny state.

What if these same standards were applied to someone like Thomas Edison? Or how about the Wright brothers? Or Jonas Salk? Where would this country be?

Parents, teacher, coaches - they all have the sacred responsibility to nurture and encourage achievement. But no one, not even the state, can guarantee it.

Community Organizing 101

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 04:07:00 +0000

Seems like The New Yorker wasn't too far off the mark. Check out this little tidbit from Investor's Business Daily.

Fear & Loathing

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:59:00 +0000

It has become as obvious as Joe Biden's hair plugs that the attacks on Sarah Palin's character are because of the left's unmitigated disdain for her. Why such animosity? First, she's not the prissy, submissive, seen-but-not-heard female that they had hoped. And second, she doesn't subscribe to the woe is me, womanhood is a burden, feminists unite crap typical of the loony left.

She is a traditionalist and, boy does that grind the femi-nazi's gears. She juggles her duties as a governor with a complicated home life and does it with a glint in her eye. She has accomplished more at the age of 44 than your run-of-the-mill feminist kook could accomplish in 2 lifetimes.

MIA

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:17:00 +0000

Where are they? Where are all those dyed-in-the-wool feminists who screamed bloody murder when the press raked Old Pantsuits over the coals during the Dimocratic primaries? They are silent while the MSM attempts to paint Sarah Palin as an unfit mother.

The press questions her ability to govern while faced with various family issues. Do they ask the same questions of male candidates? Barry is the father of two young children. Has anyone posed the question of whether being a father will have an impact on his ability to govern?

Blatant sexism. And this is from a male perspective. Nothing from NOW or their minions. The silence is deafening.

Nan Book Review Update

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:42:00 +0000

OUCH!

Trivial Pursuits

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:05:00 +0000

I had an epiphany. I never realized how much liberals trivialize human life until I listened to Barry Obama’s response to a question posed to him last Saturday by Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church. Pastor Warren asked Obama when he thought a baby has “human rights”. Barry was about as graceful as a one-legged tap dancer when he said that giving a specific answer was “above his pay grade”.

This answer is at the same time empty as well as insightful. It is empty in the fact that it displays a deep lack of compassion for the unborn. The left affords more sympathy to lab rats than it does to unborn children. They lessen the human element by turning it into a “woman’s choice” to do with her body what she wants. This puts the slaughter of an unborn child on the same level as getting breast enlargements or a facelift.

It is insightful because it reveals the true character of Barry the politician. Popular sentiment often dictates political positions. Candidates like to position themselves on the popular side of arguments. And so it goes with Barry. For example, the popular sentiment on the war in Iraq is that it was a mistake. Hence, Barry wants us out of Iraq.

Abortion is different. There is a great divide between those that oppose it and those that support it. Barry the politician realizes this and tries to steer clear of firmly planting his flag on one side or the other. However, he is being disingenuous. He has a clear position, but he doesn’t want the masses to know it.

In 2001 the Illinois state legislature introduced the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The bill was inspired by Jill Stanek, a Chicago nurse who personally witnessed babies that survived late term abortions being left to die alone in soiled linen closets. Barack Hussein Obama was the only legislator to speak against the bill. He argued that the bill was flawed because it could interfere with a woman’s right to choose. This argument was rendered moot when the federal government passed a nearly identical bill a few months later. However, this did not deter Barry. The bill was killed in 2003 by a committee that he chaired.

When Barry was running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his opponent brought up his vote on this bill. Barry responded by saying that he would have voted for the federal bill because it contained an additional meaningless clause that stated the law would have no effect on abortion policy. Now he wants us to swallow this BS again. Not me. I’m going to do what I can to make sure he doesn’t go up a pay grade.

Birthday

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:30:00 +0000

Today is my birthday. I got my skates sharpened and bought a new pair of underwear. Yee-frickin-haa!

The Decline of Western Civilization

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:53:00 +0000

I took my kids shopping yesterday at a major retail chain. As is the norm, I gave them 5 minutes to explore the toy section. While waiting for my young ones to complete their perusal I noticed that there was an inflatable pool on clearance. I decided to take a closer look. On the cover of the box is your traditional American family: mom, dad and 2 kids frolicking in the pool. Upon closer inspection I noticed that the father had what appears to be a tattoo on his upper arm. I think to myself that this is not possible. It must be a blemish on the box. I checked another box. Sure enough, it’s there in the same spot. WTF!

This raises several questions which I just don’t have the time to get into. My primary issue is this whole mainstreaming of body art, whether it is in the form of tattoos or piercings. You can’t walk down Main Street or turn on the television without seeing someone who is conspicuously displaying a tattoo. And there is no divide between genders. An equal number of females and males seem to have tattoos.

Without delving into the history of tattoos too deeply they were used in ancient times to signify many things: membership in a particular tribe, to indicate a particular skill, to ward off evil spirits, etc. While there are those today that get tattoos to display allegiance to a group (i.e. any of the various military branches, motorcycle gangs, inner-city gangs, etc.) it has primarily become a fashion statement.

It’s not just Mongo from the Warlocks getting “Berzerker” tattooed across his forehead these days. You’ve got Suzy Homemaker getting a tribal tattoo just above the crack of her ass to show off to all the other soccer moms on Saturday.

Men and women, outside of the groups that I mentioned previously, who get tattoos “just because” lack self-confidence. They need something that draws attention to them. Something that will make them seem interesting. But what happens when the interest wanes? Will they get another one? Will they try to cover up the first mistake?

Don’t just think twice before getting a tattoo. Think several times. Because having someone inject ink just below the surface of your skin because it's "hip" doesn’t build character. It reveals a lack of it.

A Thousand Words

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:56:00 +0000

Courtesy of MichelleMalkin.com

No commentary necessary. It speaks for itself.

Worthwhile Cause

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:04:00 +0000

Please support the Semper Fi Fund. Click here for more info.

The Liberal Credo

noreply@blogger.com (AOP) — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:58:00 +0000

"Do as I say, not as I do!"

Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi is on a crusade to save us. From what is she saving us? Apparently, from ourselves. For we are responsible for this impending doom known as global climate change. How is she going to save us? By going on a 5 week vacation.

San Fran Nan has shut off the lights in the House of Representatives and left the building. Except for some Republican stalwarts the shiftless lay-abouts of the 110th congress have fled to their various taxpayer subsidized retreats until after Labor Day.

Nancy pulled the plug early on this session of congress last week in order to block debate on offshore drilling. Last Sunday she appeared on “This Week with George Stephanopolous” and gave an empty and bumbling response to the question of why she would not allow a debate. Stephanopolous did a good job of keeping after her.

What’s the real reason she won’t allow a vote? She argues that offshore drilling will do serious harm to the environment. Is she right? Hardly. It’s all about image. She knows that she will lose. This is her attempt at saving face under the guise of saving the environment and it is all at our expense. Her answer is to have the President release 700 million barrels from the Strategic Oil Reserves. This is an old election year tactic that she knows hasn’t a snowballs chance in hell of happening. Why won’t it happen? Just before the 2000 election Republicans made the same demands from President Clinton that went absolutely nowhere.

She’ll continue to attempt to manipulate the voters by claiming she’s battling the threat of global climate change and that the Republicans are “hand maidens” of the oil industry.

There are real threats and there are imagined threats. Real threats are tangible and can be measured, such as radical Islamic terrorism. How can this be measured? Check out the gigantic hole in the middle of Manhattan.

What is an example if an imagined threat? Global climate change. This is an outright fantasy that exists in the minds of left-wing ideologues like Madame Speaker. And she whips it out and wields it like an axe to thwart any attempt at a reasonable debate on energy.

By the way, in case you’re wondering how Nan is spending her vacation, she’s going on a tour to promote her latest book, “Know Your Power: A Message to America’s Daughters”. Judging by the reviews at Amazon.com, Nan should have followed her own advice and saved some trees. But then again, that would be contrary to the old liberal credo of “Do as I say, not as I do”.