Monthly Archives: March 2009

Enemy Combatants to be Released in America?

Once again the town crier of conservatism, Sean Hannity, gets it wrong. Crying out on his March 27th television show,  “[t]he director of national intelligence says Gitmo detainees will be released right here in the U.S.,” and later claiming: “…we’re going to release these enemy combatants on American soil, OK?”

Come on Hannity, you know that isn’t true. And yet you are continuing to spin these lies in hopes of spreading fear and panic among your listening and viewing audiences, many of whom get all their news from you, Rush, O’Rielly and Beck.

“Angels and ministers of grace, defend us!”

Hannity also referred to the detainees that “we’re going to release” as “Gitmo combatants.” However, National Intelligence director Dennis Blair has never proposed that the United States release “enemy combatants on American soil”. Blair has only outlined the “process” by which the government would determine whether, and how, to release detainees into the United States who are not “too dangerous to let out” and have not “committed offenses that merit punishment.” Gee Hannity, that would mean that the United States Government is talking about releasing innocent people from GITMO, not terrorist, nor enemy combatants. What’s this mean? It means Sean that you’re a liar!

Oh, and Hannity, I believe if you’d done your homework – ha! Like that’s ever going to happen! – you’d have discovered that it was the Bush Administration which first proposed releasing the indiviuals in question (detainees belonging to the Uighur ethnic group from western China) testifying before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in September 2008 that the 17 Uighur detainees “will be treated as if they are no longer enemy combatants.”

Hannity also claimed – in the same broadcast – his familiar rant that more than 60 former GITMO detainees have returned to battlefied, “…we actually have from the Pentagon 61 people that we released from Gitmo. Sixty-one have gone back to the battlefield.” Once again, if Hannity had bothered to either check his facts, or report the truth, that this is not true.

Wake up America! Hannity is a liar who wouldn’t know the truth about a subject if it walked up and sat next to him. He, Rush, Beck and all the rest are not reporting facts, they’re making stuff up as they go along. They claim that the current administration is trying to govern using fear and gloom regarding our economy, but these guys just can’t let go of the old Bush/Cheney littany that brouhgt us the Patriot Act and Justice Department Memos that gave President Bush the authority to tear up the Bill of Rights all in the name of security.  Remember what Benjamin Franklin once said, “They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Hannity, and his buds, would have us do just that.

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 31, 2009 in National Security, Politics


Tags: ,

Taxing AIG Bonuses is not Unconstitutional

Recently Rush Limbaugh, and now his echoes, Hannity, Ingraham, Beck, etc. have all taken up this mantra that Congress taxing the AIG bonuses is somehow “unconstitutional”.

Now I understand how such a mistake can happen, given the fact that Rush doesn’t know the difference between the Preamble to the Constitution and the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence, but honestly folks the Constitution is a pretty straight forward document, and it pretty clearly spells out what Congress can and cannot do, particularly with regards to taxes.

Article I, Section 8 states: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

Exactly how is it unconstitutional for the United States Congress to levy a tax on the bonus money given to executives at AIG when Article I, Section 8 makes it pretty clear that Congress has the “power to lay and collect taxes”? Answer is, “it’s not unconstitutional”. But wait, that’s not all.

The 16th Amendment states: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

DOH! “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived”? Gee, that sounds like Congress can tax the living daylights out of not only these bonuses, but from whatever income it likes. Again it would appear that Congress has all the “constitutional” authority it needs to tax the AIG bonuses. Maybe Limbaugh and company should occasionally read the Constitution and then they’d know what is and what is not unconstitutional.

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 26, 2009 in Economics


Tags: , , , ,

Newt is the Hope of the GOP?

So, let me get this straight, Newt Gingrich is the hope of the GOP? If you listen to Sean Hannity on a somewhat regular basis it would seem this would be Hannity’s assessment. At every opportunity Hannity places the idea in front of his listening audience, even repeatedly asking the former speaker when he’s going to run.

Come on Sean; pull your head out of your fourth point of contact. Yes, it is true Gingrich was the co-author of the GOP’s “Contract with America”, but then what? Well, let’s take a look back in time shall we?

It was under then Speaker Gingrich’s leadership that the Republican Party focused on the perjury charges against Clinton as a unifying campaign theme in national Republican advertising during the 1998 mid-term election. While Newt believed this theme would ensure gains in the November elections, the GOP instead lost five seats in the House — the worst performance in 64 years for a party that didn’t hold the presidency. Polls showed that Gingrich and the Republican Party’s attempt to remove President Clinton from office was not as popular a theme as he had thought among the American public.

Gingrich, as the leader of the GOP in the House suffered much of the blame for the election loss. Facing a rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 6, 1998 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well. Even though he had been handily reelected to an 11th term in that election, Speaker Gingrich declined to take his seat, and according to Newsweek, he had lost control over his caucus long before the election, and it was possible that he would not have been reelected as Speaker in any case.

So, the man who led the GOP to the worst mid-term election loss in 64 years for a party not in control of the White House; the man who resigned from the House of Representatives, not only as Speaker, but as a member of that body; the man who also filed for divorce from his wife while she was undergoing cancer treatments, so he could marry a staffer with whom he was having an affair is the man who Republicans should turn to? This is the man who will lead the GOP out of the desert and into the Promised Land? Good Luck with that.

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 26, 2009 in Politics


Tags: , , ,

Trash in the White House

So, another, hate-filled, race-baiting radio host attacks the Obama family. Yesterday, Tammy Bruce, a fill-in for Laura Ingraham on her radio show, went almost apoplectic listening to the First Lady talk to a classroom full of young African-American students in a D.C. classroom. What was the First Lady describing to these students? She was describing how she – Michelle Obama – ignored the jibes, and teasing comments from other Black children growing up while she pursued A’s in school.

How did Tammy Bruce react?

This is how, according to the Huffington Post: “Discussing the first lady’s recent visit to a Washington, D.C., classroom, Bruce incredulously recalled Obama’s story about wanting to get A’s in school and called out her use of a ‘weird, fake accent.’

“‘That’s what he’s married to,’ Bruce said. ‘You know what we’ve got? We’ve got trash in the White House.’

“‘Trash is a thing that is colorblind, it can cross all eco-socionomic … categories,’ she clarified, apparently, not wanting to be judged as racist.

“‘You can work on Wall Street, or you can work at the Wal-Mart. Trash are people who use other people to get things, who patronize others, who consider you bitter and clingy…’

“‘Listen to Obama sound like — a white girl.’”

The “weird fake accent” was used in retelling her own experiences, and it wasn’t used as a “white girl” talking to her, but as other Black girls calling out to her, ridiculing her, trying to make her feel like an Uncle Tom because she wanted to get good grades.

“Trash”, Ms. Bruce, is someone like yourself, attacking the First Lady’s words, when you don’t have a blue clue what she was talking about, nor in the context she used them. “Trash” is someone who speaks out of ignorance and who willingly displays that ignorance when attempting to make fun of someone else so as to attempt to belittle them. You have given all of Ms. Ingraham’s listeners a perfect example of what “trash” is.

Thank you for that skillful demonstration. Now go back to your village, they’re missing you.

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 25, 2009 in Politics


Tags: ,

Every President Since IKE has used a Teleprompter

Enough with the teleprompter nonsense already. Every United States President since Dwight Eisenhower has used some type of teleprompter device. Reagan was awesome at it, as was Clinton, and so is President Obama. George W Bush was terrible at using one, and that’s why there’s such an even bigger difference between his dreadful public speaking attempts and the current president’s.

Using a teleprompter doesn’t mean President Obama doesn’t understand what he’s saying Rush, or Hannity, or any number of koolaid slurping, mind numbed ditto heads, unless of course you’re willing to make the same claim about Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower, George Bush or his son, as well. Which of course, you’re not.

No one who does a lot of public speaking, not even Hannity or Limbaugh, handles themselves as well speaking off the cuff as they do with a prepared text. I notice Rush uses prepared notes on his radio show. We don’t need to think very hard to remember President Bush’s horrendous off the cuff remarks. Gee, something about OBGYN’s not being able to practice their love with women? Or some such thing. Ring a bell?

Of course if this is the only thing you can find wrong with our current President, then hammer away. Prove yourselves to be as ignorant as you always do. But do us all a favor and find something with substance to fill the nation’s air waves with. Please.

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 23, 2009 in Politics


Tags: , , ,

Rush Lied about GOTP Involvement in TARP

I was going to begin this entry saying that Rush, the titular head of the GOTP, had gotten it wrong, or perhaps he had misspoken, but let’s cut to the chase, he lied! During his daily ranting Rush tried to claim, that “not one Republican voted for this bailout. Remember way back in the fall, not one Republican voted for the TARP [Troubled Asset Relief Program] bailout?”

But one lie about the Republican participation wasn’t good enough for Jabba Da Rush, no, he later repeated the false claim, saying, “Not one Republican voted for it the first time around.”

Rush, Rush, Rush, Rush, c’mon, truth is – which you know – many Republicans in both the House and Senate voted in favor of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the bill authorizing the secretary of the Treasury to create the Troubled Asset Relief Program providing the much needed financial aid to banks and other financial institutions.

In fact Rushbo, 65 House Republicans later voted in favor of H.R. 3997, as well as 34 Senate Republicans voting later for H.R. 1424. But wait folks! That’s not all! There’s more! Within 48 hours – give or take a few hours – 91 House Republicans voted for that same bill. And then the former head of the GOTP (before Maha Rushdi) President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law. But remember loyal ditto heads, Rush, the “truth detector” with a self-proclaimed accuracy rate of 99.9% said, “not one Republican voted for this bailout.”

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 19, 2009 in Economics


Tags: , , , , ,

Rush Wrong on Dodd Amendment

Today during his daily bloviating, Rush Limbaugh, the ad-hoc head of the Republican Tea Party (GOTP), falsely asserted that Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) inserted an amendment into the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act providing an “exemption from any limits on” contractual bonuses agreed to before February 11. In fact, Dodd’s amendment actually limited bonuses; it did not add “protection” for bonuses or “create a loophole” without which the bonuses could not be paid. Nor did it provide an “exemption from any limits” on bonuses agreed to before February 11.

During his broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh said, “These bonuses were exempted by Chris Dodd in the “porkulus” bill. Dodd’s own amendment, just to remind you, provides an exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before February 11, 2009, and these are — meaning, exemption from any limits on them.

The “porkulus” bill has an executive compensation pay limit, as you know. We’re limiting executive pay. Chris Dodd put in his own bill — his own amendment — that exempts bonuses from this limitation. And he’s out there now saying tax them at 90 percent. These people are the biggest frauds, artists of deceit — they all are acting. Every damned one of them knew that this was coming. They are the architects of this.”

Once again the self-proclaimed “truth meter” couldn’t be more wrong if he tried. But wait, he is trying, and he’s making it up as he goes along, or he’s just too lazy to check on all the facts. Personally, I think he’s just making it all up.

1 Comment

Posted by on March 18, 2009 in Economics


Tags: , , , ,

No Businessmen in Obama Cabinet, Not One, Oh Really?

According to the Head of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh, “There is not a single businessman in the Obama Administration…you won’t find a single one, not a single businessman advising the President.” Oh really? Not a single one El Rushbo?

How about Defense Secretary, Robert Gates? Gates has been a member of the board of trustees of Fidelity Investments, and on the board of directors for NACCO Industries, Inc., Brinker international, Inc., Parker Drilling Company and Science Applications International Corporation. Gee, I don’t know Rush, sounds like business experience to me.

And then there’s Shaun Donovan, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. What’s his business background you ask? Oh, nothing much really. Prior to serving as the head of New York City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development he was the managing director of Prudential Mortgage Capital Company for Federal housing Administration lending and affordable housing investments. I’m no expert Rush, but that sounds a lot like a businessman to me.

Wait, there’s more. Ken Salazar, Secretary of Interior. Salazar’s business experience includes having served as a partner in his family’s farm, El Rancho Salazar. Salazar and his wife have also owned and operated small businesses, including a Dairy Queen and radio stations in Pueblo and Denver, Colorado.

And last, but certainly not least, is White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, but she’s not really a businessman, she’s a businesswoman. Jarrett served as the CEO of the Habitat Company, a real estate development and management company, and she also served as a member of the board of the Chicago Stock Exchange from 2000-2007, including serving as its chairman from 2004-2007.

Not a single one? Just barely digging I found four. C’mon all seeing, all knowing, all lying Maha Rushdi you’ll have to do better than this. Wait. I take that back. No you won’t. You’re ditto-heads will never know you’re lying because they never look anything up for themselves.

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 16, 2009 in Economics


Tags: , , ,

Clinton Had Best Economy

In the past 50 days, if you listen to Rush, Hannity, et. al, the economy has been destroyed by President Obama and his wild, left-wing, radical socialist ideas! And these same pundits will try to claim that the country’s best economy was under President Reagan. What is the basis for Rush, Hannity’s, everyone else from the right-wings, assessment? The stock market!

However, if anyone would bother to actually check the facts, the best, longest sustained economic growth in the past 100+ years was not under Reagan, but under President Clinton. Not during a time of tax cuts, and incentives for the most wealthy among us, but at a time of “wild, left-wing, radical socialist ideas!”

Using the stock market as our basis of facts, the Dow gained 8,500 points during the Clinton years, as compared to 1,500 under Reagan. One of the worse drops ever in the Dow came under George W. Bush, when the Dow slid 4,000 points. However, by the time Bush left office the Dow had posted a 3,000 point gain during his presidency.

NASDAQ gained a mere 350 points under Reagan, but soared more than 4,000 points under Clinton. By the end of the Bush presidency it had plummeted 2,200 points; the only time in the past 60 years when it had ended lower than it started during a presidency.

The S&P 500 gained 300 points during Reagan’s time in office. Under Clinton it shot up 1,000 points, but once again under Bush it posted basically no true gain, the first time since the Nixon/Ford presidency.

But wait a minute! Bush had 9-11, and that screwed up the economy! That could have been used as an excuse, but, unfortunately the markets were already plunging before the attack. Now certainly 9-11 helped shove the markets further into the hole, but just as soon as the economy started to right itself, what did “W” do? Invaded Iraq. War, in spite of the right-wing assertions to the contrary, doesn’t truly aid the economy, it tends to stagnate it, then depress it, and finally there is growth afterwards.  Case in point; the NASDAQ makes a sharp climb in 2003, rising more than 1,000 points, until Bush decides to invade Iraq. The result? Initially, the NASDAQ takes a hit, and then only slowly recovers.

More evidence you say? During the Vietnam War the nation’s economy made slow to almost no growth. FDR’s policies took the DOW from 42.80 in 1932 to 187.17, but then there is a 90 point drop from 1936 to 1938. The reason you ask? The rumblings of another war in Europe, beginning with the start of Hitler’s aggressive moves into the Rhineland, and coupled with the start of the Spanish Civil War. The Dow climbs again, back to around 140, until? The attack on Pearl Harbor! The Dow declines to around 90, until in early 1942 it climbs back to around the 140 to 150 mark. Why? Because the United States begins to win against the Japanese, ever heard of the Battle of Midway? But there isn’t this huge boom the right-wing always suggests. The boom out of the Great Depression had already occurred.

Under Truman the Dow rises to around 250, and is climbing when Eisenhower is elected. It continues to rise until the war in Vietnam slows the economy under LBJ and Nixon.

The Dow takes a hit right around 1970. Any guesses why? Because of self-destruction of the Republican Presidency, brought on by the bungled break in of the Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate Building, and coupled with the inevitable post-war recession from the ending of the Vietnam War. Thanks Dick.

The markets (Dow, S&P 500 and NASDAQ) make a brief rally under Ford, and even under Carter, but then begin to dip and eventually stagnates at the end of Carter’s term. Why? The Iran Hostage Crisis, along with soaring oil prices, and lukewarm leadership.

Finally it begins a sharp climb under Reagan rising more than 1,500 points, only to plunge when George Bush is elected, with little growth during his four years. Remember Desert Storm? Somalia? More lukewarm leadership?

Under Clinton the Dow, NASDAQ and S&P 500 rocket up, only to be stagnated by the Bush administration. Gee, I don’t know, maybe 9-11, invading Iraq, torturing prisoners, usurping the Bill of Rights?

There are only two Presidents in the past 60 years who have managed to place the economy into a truly vegetative state, Carter and George W. Bush. Both will probably go down in history as the most inept, most bungling presidents ever.

One more point about the current drop – the one President Obama inherited from “W”. The market has had a dip after every presidential election for at least the last 60 years, both republican and democrat. The current plunge began during the summer of 2007, under the Bush Administration.

So, what does this all mean? Look, I’m just an average “Joe” American, a soldier turned school teacher by trade, but I can read charts, and I can look into what has happened historically, and from what I’ve read, Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, Ingram, Palin, McCain, etc., are all a bunch of liars. The economy has always shown the most growth during peace time. It has shown the most growth when the taxes were not cut, but increased on the wealthiest class. Sorry Hannity, but facts are facts, our nation’s economy skyrocketed under Clinton, with all of his so-called horrible tax increases, the same increase that President Obama is looking to put back into place. Why don’t you take the time to do some research next time?

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 13, 2009 in Economics


Tags: , ,

Hannity is a Liar


How can someone who consistently lies claim to be serving either his country or his party? And yet Sean Hannity is looked up to by millions of listeners each day who call his show and proclaim, “Oh, Sean, you’re a great American”. PLEASE!

Hannity is nothing more than a liar. He doesn’t report news, he doesn’t even comment on it very well, he makes stuff up, and his listeners suck the right-wing koolaid in through their audio IVs.

His biggest lie of late has been repeating over and over again how President Obama lied about cutting ear marks. Earth to Sean. The President never promised that. Your candidate, John McCain did. So, you’re basically saying the President is a liar because he didn’t keep McCain’s promises.

But, hey, don’t take my word for it, here’s what Hannity has been spewing.

The following is from the March 11 edition of Fox News’ Hannity: as reported by Media Matters.

Hannity said, “Barack Obama, in the debate with John McCain, said, “I’m going to go line by line. I’m going to eliminate all the earmarks.” Now, I think politically speaking, Barack Obama had a golden opportunity to stand up to his party and say, “I’m a man of my word, I promised the American people, and I’m going to keep it.” He didn’t do that. Was that a big mistake?

“If you say, “I’m going to go line by line, I’m gonna eliminate bad programs, I’m gonna eliminate all earmarks,” that seems to me like a broken promise.

“But is it petty if Barack Obama says, “I am going to go line by line and eliminate earmarks,” and the first bill he signs — 50 days into his administration — he signs a bill with 9,000 earmarks? That’s a broken pledge.”

Oh Sean, Sean, Sean, Sean. If McCain makes the promise; which he did; then how is it Obama’s promise? He – Obama – never said it. Therefore Mr. Hannity, you’re a bald faced liar.

Oh, and by the way Mr. Hannity, if we’re going to talk about broken promises, when are you going to be water boarded for the families of our fallen soldiers, like you said you would be?

Leave a comment

Posted by on March 12, 2009 in Right Wing Radio


Tags: , ,