Jeannie-ology

Without a doubt, on Super Bowl Sunday, the liberal left will anoint football great Tim Tebow the second most despised person in America, exceeded only by Sarah Palin.  The Heisman trophy winner, together with the ex-governor of Alaska will bear the guilt for putting a human face on millions of aborted babies — none of whom the choice lobby care to acknowledge.

Just a few weeks ago, Down’s syndrome child Trig Palin a chubby, joyful toddler showed up alongside nephew Tripp on the InTouch Weekly cover. Like Trig, Tripp was spared from a biohazard bag when born to his teenage, unwed mother Bristol.  Adding insult to injury, the Sarah Palin story included the distasteful title, “We’re glad we chose life!”

Now, right in the middle of the Super Bowl, while Americans eating nachos and sipping beer anticipate raunchy Go Daddy commercials, pesky Tim Tebow and his obnoxious mother show up and spoil the party with an “anti-abortion commercial.”

First Sarah brings Trig and her pregnant, unwed daughter to the RNC convention.  Then, wild-eyed, religious fanatic Tim Tebow, together with Focus on the Family plan to ruin the fun by recounting the miraculous story of Tim’s birth.  If abortion activists fail to get the ad pulled from the Super Bowl ad line up, Pro-choice America may be forced to admit people actually do “Celebrate Family and Life” and Trig, Tripp and Tim prove it.

Given the option to choose death after being told her baby might be imperfect, Pam Tebow like Sarah, laid aside self-interest and chose to relinquish the role of God– both women chose life.  The result of that decision was a healthy newborn that grew into “one of the greatest college football players who ever lived.”  America doesn’t want to face a reality like that, especially when air time would better serve an ad for Victoria’s Secret.

Jembu Green, president of the NY-based Women’s Media Center feels, “An ad that uses sports to divide rather than unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year – an event designed to bring Americans together.”   Is it Jembu Green’s contention that dead fetuses somehow make a national sports event a unifying experience?

Tim’s nationally televised homage to his mother for letting him live must be stopped!  Why? Because Erin Matson, the Action VP for the National Organization for Women is offended. Matson expressed her opinion about the controversial ad by saying, “It is hate masquerading as love.  It sends a message that abortion is always a mistake.”  And who would know better than an abortion advocate like Ms. Matson about “love” and “masquerades”?  Isn’t Erin a representative of a group that promotes murder as choice?

Rest assured America, the only thing worse for pro-choicers than watching a pro-life ad on Super Bowl Sunday would be spotting Sarah Palin, Trig and Tripp in the crowd smiling and having a spectacular time.

Popularity: 14% [?]

The federal government is once again proving to America unsurpassed mastery at prioritizing pressing concerns when it comes to protecting the nation.  Take for example Interior Secretary Ken Salazar proposing a ban on importation of snakes.  Concerned for the security of 300-million Americans, Salazar proposed, “nine types of pythons and anacondas from Africa and South American be added to a list of species banned from being imported into the United States.”

According to the Interior Secretary, “injurious species” such as Burmese pythons and other types of constrictors threaten lives.  Speaking, as a representative of a concerned federal government, Salazar believes interdiction of snakes a foolproof method to keep Americans out of the path of fang induced envenomation and random snake strangulation–both pressing national security concerns.

The Secretary of the Interior issued a warning that besides strangling more than a dozen people, Americans have caught diseases and died from things like monkey pox from rodents imported from Africa and anthrax from unprocessed goatskins imported from the Ivory Coast.

Not to worry–with Barry, Big Sis and Salazar on the job government officials are addressing foreign reptile invasion.  Airboat ready since 2000 the feds have caught more than 1,200 rapidly breeding constrictors released into the wild in Everglades National Park.  Not to mention the persistent hunting down and identifying smuggled Asian arowana from Malaysia, as well as federal confiscation of agriculturally caustic live snails

In a nation diligent about monitoring illegal entry of reptiles and goatskins into the US, it seems shocking that in addition to over $1 billion dollars in legal wildlife imports, “millions of dollars worth of illegal animals got past Customs agents around the nation.” Illegal animals? What a surprise!

According to Salazar, the federal government’s main concern in limiting snake imports boils down to the safety and wellbeing of America’s children.  Why? Because in June of 2009, “a pet Burmese python strangled a 2-year old girl in her bedroom.” Speaking from JFK Airport Kenneth Salazar informed the public that certain breeds of snake have been responsible for, “at least a dozen people including five kids being killed in the United States by pet pythons since 1980.”

Specific snakes and wild animals prohibited from entering American borders are chosen based on the threat level to wild and human life.  The same criteria should hold true as it pertains to criminal illegal aliens roaming free and “wreaking havoc on the ground.”

Federal banning of imported snakes can’t help but draw attention toward the apathetic attitude concerning 20 million illegals streaming unabated over the southern border. Maybe Salazar could explain to the public why anacondas breeding in the Everglades muster more apprehension to government officials then the illegal entry of Mexican MS-13 gang members.

If child safety is really the issue then Mr. Salazar should take a break from chasing snakes in beach grass and suggest to Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano that America’s children are at greater risk from undocumented sex offenders than catching monkey pox from African rodents or strangulation by Burmese pythons.

Statistics show that “In addition to suppressing wages, bankrupting our hospitals, and over-crowding our jails and public schools, illegal aliens prey upon children.” So while tax dollars are spent perusing the Florida Keys for anacondas, dangerous Mexican nationals like Julian Vasquez skulk across the border and break into apartments to sexually assault 13-year-old girls.

Not all snakes entering the country are on the list of banned species. Loren Leigh, president of a reptile supply company in San Diego claims, “A lot of these animals aren’t as harmful as they’ve been made out to be — they’re pets being billed as these vicious monsters.” However, within every species there dwells a menacing subclass. This is true for snakes, as well as illegals trying to live “productive, law-abiding lives.”

Within the ranks of illegal immigrants dwells a minority, “bent on indulging in a more predatory lifestyle.” Arizona authorities claim these criminals aren’t “coming over for jobs, these aren’t people trying to take care of their families back in Mexico, they’re coming over to cause havoc.” Border agent Mike Scioli says dangerous criminals are attempting entry into the U.S. along the Mexican border. “We’re talking about major things. Homicides, sex offenders, big robberies, armed robberies–things to that degree.” As a result, like the snake infested Florida Keys, towns and cities in America have been infiltrated by criminal illegals “released into the wild,” overrunning “native species” and drastically impacting the socio-cultural eco-system.

And so a government ambivalent toward open borders and undocumented thugs entering and remaining in America exhibit security concerns by wrestling designer snakes at airport custom’s warehouses. “At Kennedy, inspectors handle all snakes as if they were poisonous — in case the documents accompanying them don’t match the wriggling goods packed in sacks inside wooden crates.” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should be as half as stringent when applying criteria to illegal immigration handling undocumented lawbreakers like toxic reptiles until valid documentation can be verified.

It is a sad state of affairs when government officials are more adept at separating harmless corn snakes from green anacondas then curtailing criminals illegitimately roaming free within our borders.  Shockingly, “Federal immigration officials allowed scores of violent criminals — some ordered deported decades ago — to walk away from Harris County Jail despite the inmates’ admission to local authorities that they were in the country illegally.”  Releasing undocumented ex-convicts onto America’s streets is similar to opening Styrofoam shipping containers full of imported northern African rock pythons in a schoolyard.

The question is, what prevents the United States government from assigning to undocumented criminals the same standards Kenneth Salazar put in place for preventing entry, capturing and deportment of venomous snakes? Someone should inform Barry, Big Sis and Secretary Salazar that instead of herpetological concerns and checking suitcases for live snails, tax dollars would better serve the nation by securing borders and protecting American citizens from undeterred illegal predators slithering like snakes across the border.

Popularity: 6% [?]

Originally posted at American Thinker

According to Nancy Pelosi campaign promises have one purpose—getting a candidate elected.  After voting, a candidate’s word can be shelved like a magician’s prop.  If the Speaker is to be taken seriously nothing Barack Obama said during the presidential campaign holds weight and should be disregarded as roadside rhetoric.

If Pelosi’s ruling versus rhetoric conjecture is correct it explains the last twelve months. Nancy Pelosi insisting on defining clandestine conferences as transparency brings clarity to what America deals with every time Obama speaks. Since January of 2009 black is white, right is wrong and open is shut.  Overarching debt is economic stimulus, job loss is growth, socialists are capitalists, enemies are friends and despair and despotism is defined as hope and change.

Lest America forget, before the Democrats lost a filibuster proof Senate, though unsolicited, Obama repeatedly volunteered to “broadcast [health care] negotiations on C-Span.” Lofty promises were made because Barack Obama was falsely convinced the country would kowtow to every policy whim he proposed.  Obama thought wrong.  What the President didn’t anticipate was 49% of the American public being against socialized health care reform, as well as a united Republican Party standing in opposition to overhauling the entire system. Above all, this imperious president didn’t expect an unknown Republican from Massachusetts to wrest the Teddy Kennedy Memorial scepter from the late liberal icon’s  hand.

Yet in a distorted way, transparency truly does exist on Capitol Hill because liberals have been crystal clear about the desire to “fundamentally transform” America. For instance, Obama, together with the Democrat-controlled House and Senate, made no secret the intention to singlehandedly revamp 1/6^th of the American economy.  Before health care expired, “guiding an honest process,” meant holding surreptitious negotiations, in the dead of night, sans public or opposition party participation.  Democrats are likely unaware of it, but skulking around in the shadows accomplished the opposite and made underhanded motives more transparent.

While debating Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential race Obama said he would broadcast health care negotiations on C-Span, “bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors.” After taking office, “broadcast,” “bringing” and “behind” were redefined Obama-style and backdoor negotiations and dishonest agreements became common practice. America patiently observed a non-transparent health care reform process abounding with “hidden agendas” where over the last year, deliberations became, “a breeding ground for more of the kickbacks, shady deals and special-interest provision that have become business as usual in Washington.”

Its no wonder Scott Brown, who seemed to appear out of thin air, won the special senatorial election. Obama’s repeated campaign pledge to “enlist the American people in the [health care] process,” and then doing the opposite was the final nail in the one-party-rule coffin.  With an election for Teddy’s seat on the horizon, America watched as C-Span CEO Brian Lamb sent correspondence to Pelosi and Reid beseeching Congress to open up health care reform deliberations to the public. The frustrated CEO’s requests were met with a half-hearted concession to open the negotiations to the public for one hour–a much shorter period than most Americans would be waiting for a throat culture if health care passed.

For weeks the nation, including voters heading for the polls in Massachusetts, observed Nancy Pelosi responding to C-Span’s request like a critical care nurse tightly pulling closed the privacy curtain. Pelosi’s contention that, “[t]here has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who’s served here’s experience,” prompts the question as to whether the Speaker should be rushed to the top slot in a psychological triage.

Brian Lamb spoke for American when he “urged Congress in his letter to fling open the doors in the final stretch of negotiations.”  Instead, the CEO was met with a sign above the double doors of the health care debate, which read, “Restricted Beyond This Area Authorized Personnel Only!” Denying C-Span right of entry to the health care dialogue put the Senate majority in hospice care.

Yet the left forged ahead with a plan to circumvent the usual Conference Committee procedure to reconcile the two chamber’s versions of the bill.  In the process, Democratic doctors Barry, Harry and Nancy, failed to take the pulse of the American electorate. The tragic trio made the fatal mistake of continuing on with the ruse allowing access to only a “few negotiators concocting the final version out of sight, without formal rules governing the process.” The Democrat leadership was convinced socialistic purposes would be better served without C-Span cameras in the room documenting the organ harvest.

Democrats pushed for secret deliberations to thwart “having to cut deals with problematic House Democrats like Michigan’s Bart Stupak, who promised to do what he could to scuttle the final bill if it provided for federal funding of abortion.” Aware an audience desiring the bill’s demise seeing one “party working on behalf of constituents,” would be detrimental to the left’s righteous cause, Democrats continued to connive behind closed doors, and while they did, America watched.

The nation obviously viewed the conduct as fraudulent and undeniably voiced a reproving opinion on a snowy Tuesday in Massachusetts.  The Speaker of the House, as well as America’s lucent President, were reminded by Blue State voters that, “[m]inimum disclosure to which agreements, dealings, practices, and transactions are open to all for verification,” is defined as lack of transparency.

If something is transparent it lacks hidden agendas and conditions.  Transparency is accompanied by the availability of full information required for collaboration, cooperation, and collective decision-making.  Essential to transparency is the condition for a free and open exchange whereby the rules and reasons behind regulatory measures are fair and clear to all participants.

So, in light of the constant barrage of mixed messages coming from power elites like Pelosi and Obama, its good to know that before entering the voting booth, Massachusetts voters brushed up on the literal meaning of transparency casting a vote for and sending a message from the entire nation.

Truth is, the people of this country are patient and forgiving.  But as Obama is finding out, messing around with the American psyche results in political ramifications like being flattened by a GMC Canyon . Little did Pelosi, Reid and company know, but  unabashed lack of transparency not only ensured the election of Scott Brown, but it also sealed a Stupak condemned, rare late term, political abortion of Democrat rule in Obama’s fourth trimester.

Popularity: 23% [?]

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

“Everyday that goes by, we learn more about the horrifying scope of this catastrophe – destruction and suffering that defies comprehension.”  The President isn’t talking about the first year of the Obama presidency, but rather the dire situation in distressed Haiti.

While introducing the Clinton/Bush Haiti Relief Fund Obama shared that the fund  is a conduit, “…into the incredible generosity, the ingenuity, [and] the can-do spirit of the American people in helping our neighbors in need. ”

Who better than Obama to discuss and represent American openhandedness and the spirit of giving?

In fact, in response to what Barack Obama described as, “deeply moving,” “heartbreaking images of devastation” the President and First Lady donated a whopping $15,000.00 to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund. Yes, a figure worth repeating, $15,000.00.   But then again, the Obama’s are not known altruistic benevolence when it comes to sharing the contents of the Obama joint bank account.

In previous comments concerning Haiti, the President implored Americans to give, saying, “Despite the fact that we are experiencing tough times here at home, I would encourage those Americans who want to support the urgent humanitarian efforts to go to whitehouse.gov where you can learn how to contribute.”

Maybe Obama is the one who needs to “learn how to contribute?”  According to CNN Money Barack Obama is worth 1.3 million and donated 1.5% or $15,000.00?  Is this how the President leads the American people to give to a relief effort?

Not to worry, the Obama family Hawaiian vacation fund is never in jeopardy of being depleted by causes like major earthquakes. Actually, according to historical records of charitable giving, a 1% contribution is not out of character for Barry and Michelle.  Just this week, Sam Stein of the Huffington Post outlined the First Couple’s giving record from 2000 through 2004.  During that period, the Obama’s earned about $300-thousand dollars a year, but gave no more than $3,500.00 or 1% of their annual income.

In 2005 that number jumped to $77,315 or 4.7% and in 2006 to $60,307, a rousing 6.1 percent.  During those poverty-stricken years, one righteous cause Obama deemed worthy was Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ.  Giving $27,000.00 to a racist, anti-Semitic pastor the President claimed he was unaware spewed hate speech.

The Obama’s also gave to causes such as the African Muntu Dance Theater and The Rochelle Lee Fund who sponsor Big Read programs in conjunction with the National Endowment for the Arts. Oh, and let’s not forget the $13,107.00 donation to the Congressional Black Caucus listed as a “charity gift.”

The Obama’s tax records indicate that, when it comes to “sharing the wealth” the couple fell short of the “Biblical 10% tithe.” Averaging $225-thousand dollars a year and giving $2,500.00 to charity, which by the way works out to $6.84 cents a day, from a President with zero compunction about picking the pockets of Americans who, no thanks to liberal policies, earn less and give more-is appalling.

As fortune would have it, the esteemed Nobel Peace Prize winner can redeem his tightfisted reputation by exhibiting munificence and bestowing the $1.4 million in Oslo prize money to the Haiti relief fund. Robert Gibbs did say, “The money would be donated to charity.” What could be a better cause to support?

Making a $1.4 million contribution would not only assist the devastated Haitians, but, in the process, such a bighearted gesture could also bolster the wilting President’s global reputation?

Popularity: 18% [?]

Territory is defined as an area, which an animal will defend against intruders of the same species. According to Robert Ardrey, “A territorial species of animals, therefore, is one in which all males, and sometimes females too, bear an inherent drive to gain and defend an exclusive property.”  As it is for animals, so it is for politicians, especially Barack Obama whose words and aggressive actions indicate an “inherent drive to gain and defend,” what the President perceives to be, “exclusive property.”

For twelve months, Barack Obama has acted like a male alpha dog rhetorically spraying every past, present and future policy issue he comes in contact with.    The President sycophantically practices placing socialist scents at nose level to alert conservative and moderate dogs, looking to claim a portion of the political prefecture, to back off.

Incessantly reiterating a liberal schema for America, the President may as well get it over with and mandate Obamaroma be crop dusted  over North America, and while he’s at it, if possible, spritz the whole planet.

Canines and other mammals mark territory for one purpose, to “limit competition within a niche or habitat,” for Obama that niche includes totalitarian power exercised, without obstruction, within Washington DC’s halls of power.  The yard Obama guards includes a liberal pack of canids from a Democratic carnivorous pit bull family.

In order to claim as much land mass as possible, African wild dogs are known to “…scramble as high up the trunk of a tree before squirting their message,” which is–step over the boundary and the area will be ruthlessly defended.

In Barack Obama’s case, not only are other politicians considered interlopers, but also based on the President’s blatant disregard for the electorate, apparently so are the American people.  If the voices of a representative democracy speak out in opposition to Obama’s policies, the President swiftly responds with a well-positioned leg lift followed by a prime time uncovering of saliva dripping premolars, issuing a bone-crushing warning to the defiant.

Although a president cannot literally mark large swatches of political territory by employing the “natural method,” pushing back against critics flouting Obama’s edicts and sanctions, in essence, is Barack marking territory.

Take for example, the majority of Americans opposing health care reform.    Alpha-Obama lifted his left-leg and “pushed back against opponents of his health care initiatives…again target[ing] insurance companies in the second of three town hall meetings aimed at winning support for legislation.”

Dogs sneaking through the barbed wire fence into Obama’s yard were met at a Joint Session of Congress by Obama spraying his critics, as well as, witnessing the President spew all over the entire chamber.  Once again, Obama pushed back–bared teeth and snarling, “The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action.” No discussion, no compromise.  Obama laid territorial claims and might as well have put a sign out saying, “Stay off the grounds this country belongs to me!”

Obama, together with the pack, have growled and marked the boundaries around the health care issue. Every time the opposition drew near Obama and his leftist minions charged the opposition imposing a health care bill on a nation that roundly rejects governmental kibble.

Hey, Republican Rover don’t you know well-trained pit bulls don’t back down and let what they consider scruffy stray dogs mark territory where top dogs rule?

Shockingly, unlikely cat lovers in liberal Massachusetts snapped the choke chain and took control of the situation by wresting control from trash heap dogs. Realizing the tail was wagging the dog, Americans rose up and sent the message, “Dogs don’t run the yard – owners do!”

Massachusetts voters targeted tail wagging hounds like Nancy Pelosi who mists Capitol Hill with left-wing political pheromones, bats her bitchy eyelashes and gnarrs, “Democrats will charge ahead with health care reform regardless of what happens in the Massachusetts Senate race.” Or, tyke’s like Charlie Rangel who mocked the Bay State’s attempt to claim territory as a non-starter, yipping out the retort “We will have health reform regardless of what happens in Massachusetts… We have alternatives to this cockamamie 60 votes in the Senate.”

Either way, Scott Brown’s election to the US Senate is a liberal electorate’s stunning message to the 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue alpha dog commanding him to back off. As a result, the whole situation holds potential to become a national piss-off.  Because “When one male detects the scent of another, (particularly an unknown male), it could cause a perhaps low-level stress reaction, which would then increase the need to urinate.”  Scott Brown representing “We the people” in a seat vacated by liquored-up liberal paladin is sure to have alpha Obama’s bladder over stimulated to the point where a territory-marking flood is forthcoming like water crashing through a dam.

America can expect a public hydrant drenching in the days immediately following the election – just to remind everyone who’s in charge because,

“Male dogs, on reaching a previously urine-marked landmark, will often attempt to cover over the urine marks of previous canine visitors with their own urine.  In so doing, they sometimes engage in some quite amusing acrobatics, including the reverse handstand sometimes displayed by little dogs when attempting to over-mark lofty scent marks left by larger dogs.”

After Scott Brown’s win Obama, a toy poodle believing he’s a pit bull, will exhibit political gymnastics to win back ground lost spinning a loss into a win like Jonathan Horton working the high bar.

As America has witnessed over the last year, some dogs have an obsession about marking territory. The best way to prevent a male dog from urine marking is to neuter the canine before territorial behavior is exhibited, with Obama already in office, its too late for that.   However, if the animal is already established, neutering may not help and wherever the male canid sprays the odor needs to be neutralized, which is what Massachusetts voters did tonight.

Truth is, Obama fancies himself an alpha male.  “The alpha makes and enforces the rules. Alpha dogs enforce their authority by the use of stern eye contact, growling, dominant body postures and if that fails, biting and fighting. If you watch your dogs closely, you’ll see examples of this eye contact and posture in their daily activities.”  Since day one, dominant body posture, lack of sincere eye contact and haughty posture has been on full display from the occupant of the Oval Office.

The President’s “bark may be in equal proportion to his bite,” and Obama can drench the political landscape all he likes with the stench of socialistic policy.  In the meantime, while an out-of-control Obama circles the fire hydrant continuing to believe “no leash can hold him and his tail wags for no one,”  in one day, Massachusetts voters neutralized and counteracted the leader of the pack and in the process set about retraining the unruly horde of junkyard dogs he runs with.

Hey, Obama, “Sit, roll over and beg,” the American people own you!

Popularity: 68% [?]