Prior to each and every time the Obama's have "a night on the town"

(A knock on the door, Michelle answers it, and lets Joe Biden in)  "Hi Joe.  Barack is just saying good night to the girls.  He'll be out in a minute, then we'll be leaving"

(In the back of the White House residence, in Sasha and Malia's room, President Barack Obama, may his name be praised, is talking to his daughters) "OK, girls, before we leave, let's go over the rules".

Sasha: "Let Crazy Uncle Joe think he's really in charge"

Malia: "And don't let any strangers talk to Crazy Uncle Joe, they might be reporters"

President Barack Obama, may his name be praised: "Very good girls, I'll see you tomorrow".

After the Obama's leave the discussion:

Michelle: "Barack, you know it gets expensive, everytime we go out, we pay the girls to watch Joe, and then we pay Joe so he thinks he's watching the girls"

President Barack Obama, may his name be praised: "Don't worry, I pay the girls out of campaign funds, and I give Joe worthless Monopoly money, he can't tell the difference"

Michelle: "But if you push through your economic policies, that Monopoly money will be worth more than real money!"

This seems almost too stupid to believe, but there is actually serious discussions about bailing out the print media.  

This is a bad idea, and unconstitutional, for many reasons.

1. Why should we subsidize newspapers that wouldn't need subsidies if we chose to read them?  The American people have voted with their wallets/pocketbooks.
2. Change "newspapers" to "churches" and the ACLU will be moving so fast, it will give you whiplash.  
3. Rights require the government to protect them, not provide them.  For The Havana, oops I mean The New York Times to enjoy their freedom of the press, does NOT require me to pay for it.  
4. Who will determine who gets the government subsidies?  Eventually every paper would be entitled to government money, and soon there will be more newspapers (many will have negligible circulation) than you can shake a stick at.
5. And what if some bureaucrat doesn't like what they say?

I can go on.  Finding reasons why this is bad is like shooting fish in a barrel.  But with this current batch of socialists running this country, nothing is too ridiculous.  Note near the end of the article: "Yet, on Sept. 20, President Obama threw his support behind a news bailout, saying: 'I’ll be happy to look at' bills aiding the industry."  

Times are changing (except for that rag The New York Times) and maybe newspapers will become a thing of the past. Unless liberals get in the way.  If they had their way, we wouldn't have refrigerators, but we'd have icemen deliver large blocks of ice everyday.

Considering how overwhelmingly people in New York City voted for President Obama, I think it is very appropriate they host the trials of, as the Obama Administration calls them, the makers of man made disasters. They voted for him, they should pay the price.

I propose that we declare November 1 as World Hug Day.  On that day, I (not anybody else) encourage everybody around the world to to the following to every person they come in contact with: give them a big hug, then tell them "I'm here for you" and then give them another big hug.  Think of how that will make everybody the world over.  All the world citizens will be happier, and the world will be a better place.

Now because I proposed that, and nobody else, yes, it was MY idea, and not yours, I have one question: When can I pick up my Nobel Peace Prize?

Unfortunately for me, I am represented by a democrat in the House of Representatives.  However, because of that I just sent him the following note on his "contact me" page:

"I am appalled that the leaders of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi and Sten Hoyer, would brand opponents of the proposed health care plan (which they haven't read) as "unamerican". As they are leaders of your party, they usually speak for your party, so I want to know if you agree with this assessment. If not, when will you publicly repudiate them? If you remain silent, I have to conclude that you agree with them, as they are your party leaders."

I think that is a fair question, especially since Republicans are told to repudiate anybody to the right who says anything questionable.  In this case it is the elected leaders of the democrats.  I encourage everybody who is represented in the House by a dem to demand they repudiate these two "leaders" or you will consider them in agreement.

That useful idiot, Jimmy Carter is at it again

Idiot Jimmy says recognize Hamas

Doesn't he get the message, when the American voter voted him out of office via the Landslide of 1980 it was because of his total incompetence in everything that involved running the government, including foreign policy. His idiocy led to Iran becoming the radical Islamic "republic" it is today.

Bottom line is -- SHUT UP JIMMY, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!

Just make all Democrats, those who keep saying everybody should "pay their fair share" of taxes, pay their back (a.k.a "their fair share") taxes. 

1. He hasn't been convicted - in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. 
2. The state Constitution has provisions for impeachment, not for the Supreme Court to remove an unpopular politician
3. The longer he hangs around, the more nervous the Dems will get.  Will he spill his guts about the Chicago machine that gave us our Messiah President-elect.

Just MHO.

If Barney Frank was a heterosexual Republican, this would be all over the news, and there would be calls for him to resign.

Lawmaker Accused of Fannie Mae Conflict of Interest

But then again, this year the media bias is just over the top.

Barack Obama claims he is the candidate that can unite all Americans and end the partisan bickering.  Hey, he can't even unite his own campaign:  Obama says "You are a bad boy Joe"

Why will Obama lose this election?

Because this election is the "New Kid vs. Established Candidate" scenario. Just like 1976, 1988 and to some extent 1992. In each of these elections the "new kid" jumped out to a lead and then tried to hold on. In 1976 (Carter) and 1992 (Clinton) they were able to hold on, but Dukakis in 1988 miserably crashed and burned. With this election so close now, Obama has no place to go but down.

I actually see a reasoning behind this. Most people know the established candidate, in this case John McCain, and they've known them for some time. Therefore, their vote is more solid, i.e. less likely to change. So what if their candidate makes a slip up or has a bad debate, they have a "body of work" that their supporters can feel comfortable with.

But how well do Obama's supporters know him? As the new kid, he has the appeal of freshness, much like Peanut-brain and Dukakis did. As the newness and novelty wore off, their support went down. Those who oppose Obama because of his complete lack of experience probably won't change their minds, as Barack won't get much more experience in the next few months. But everytime that inexperience leads to a gaffe, or the inner politician in him comes out, he will lose votes. In simple words, McCain's support is probably more reliable than Obamas. Both Carter and Clinton had big leads, so they were able to survive their dwindling support. Obama has already lost that lead, and it will just get smaller.

Just my humble opinion

One thing I noticed in Brit Hume's piece on Obama's trip to Germany:

Not Everyone In Germany Ecstatic About Obama's Berlin Speech

He notes that half of the three-quarter of a million dollar price tag was being paid for by the German taxpayers.  Therefore:

1. Shouldn't this be considered a foreign campaign contribution?  The German portion of his trip was campaign financed (see http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/24/obama-cancels-visit-to-us-troops-in-germany/ as it explains why he didn't visit wounded troops).  Therefore if part of the cost is paid by Germans, aren't they (some unwillingly) contributing to his campaign?
2. Why is he campaigning in a foreign country?  He is running for President of the United States, not King of the World.  I think it adds nicely to his aura of arrogance.
   
3. Hey, at least this time, he wasting somebody else's money, not ours.