Monday, December 22, 2008

MARXIST SODERBERGH DEFENDS CHE

The useless idiots in America that voted for Obama and the people who glorify Che Guevara are one in the same. You’re neither liberal or conservative, moderate or independent, Democrat or republican. You hate your Western heritage, look at your country with great shame and want America to fail and fall.

Simply, you’re the lowest of the lowest scum and plaguing this great country like a cancer.

A new movie has come out, directed by Steven Soderbergh, that glorifies the life of Che. I don’t know what is more shocking, the fact that anyone in Hollywood would want to make a movie about this murderous piece of garbage or how Soderbergh defends Che in this clip. Here, Soderbergh stands in front of a packed house at a screening for his new rag on a reel at New York City’s Ziegfeld Theater. Watch and listen to this insanity carefully:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_dhBaPD7wQ

First of all, I’m sure most of you realize that Hollywood is predominately controlled by gays and lesbians. With that said, I really cannot understand why a town that is run by the gay mafia would make a movie about a man who detested gay people and even went so far as to unjustly incarcerate people, gay or straight, who was inflicted with AIDS.

In the video, Soderbergh (sounding like Jeff Spicoli in Fast Times At Ridgemont High) claims that Che was a "hardass". One person of sane mind shouts out "MURDERER". Now I want you to pay attention to this line as this piece of filth justifies Che’s crimes:

"I would say to you, that Che that is portrayed in this film tonight, was absolutely capable of those acts (murder). And I would say that they’re necessary." He goes further: "Whether you agree with him or not, he’s says ‘we’ve done this we will keep doing this because it’s necessary to secure the revolution."

Bullshit. You and the rest of the scum like you in this country do agree with him don’t you. I don’t know about you but, all of this talk about committing murder in order to support the revolution sounds an awful like what was coming out of Obama’s old pal Bill Ayers’ mouth. You all remember this video and what this witness described what the Weather Underground would do to the "counter-revolution". That would be us. Those who still believe that America is the greatest country in the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_5MY59ENrc
See similarities?

What’s the most laughable are the useless idiots in the audience who call out "SO! BUSH IS A MURDER!" and "THEY DO THE SAME IN THIS COUNTRY".

What this little snot nose (most likely from The New School University of Bending Minds) doesn’t realize is that, if he was in a country run by a man like Che or if he was in the former Iraq under Saddam Hussein, he’d be taken out and, if he was lucky, shot and killed.

And if they would just put down the bong long enough and leave their world of never-ending group think to take a look into Hussein Obama’s plans for a National Civilian Security Force, they’d realize that America is getting closer and closer to being such a place.

But they don’t realize that. Viva Le Revolutione! They don’t get it because they’re living in a fantasy world. And it’s because the New School University of Bended Minds doesn’t teach them that Che Guevara promoted one of the most unjust social systems imaginable.
The number of gagged and blindfolded men who Che sent – without trials – to be bound to a stake and blown apart by bullets runs from the hundreds to the thousands. The first three months of the Cuban Revolution saw 568 firing squad executions. Even the New York Times admits it. The preceding "trials" shocked and nauseated all who witnessed them. They were shameless farces, sickening charades. Ask Barry Farber. He was there.

Any serious analyst of Che's "guerrilla" campaigns cannot escape the conclusion that Ernesto Guevara was actually incapable of applying a compass reading to a map. Yet seemingly sane historians place him alongside Mao Tse Tung of (the 8 thousand mile) "long march" fame. He abolished Habeas Corpus while his chief hangman (Che Guevara himself) declared that judicial evidence is an archaic bourgeois detail. Yet Harvard Law School invited him as their guest of honor, then erupted in cheers and tumultuous ovations after his every third sentence.

He drove out a higher percentage of Jews from Cuba than Czar Nicholas drove from Russia. Yet Shoah Foundation Founder Stephen Spielberg, considered his dinner with Fidel Castro, "the eight most important hours of my life." He jailed the longest suffering black political prisoner of modern history (Eusebio Penalver who suffered longer in Castro's dungeon's than Nelson Mandela suffered in South Africa's).

Monday, October 13, 2008

ONLY IN NEW YORK CITY



http://mrltavern.podomatic.com

People, I live about 45 minutes from mid-town Manhattan. It's just a Metro North train ride away. I used to work in the city and would commute there on a daily basis. Before that I would always commute there to see two of my old friends who lived there. Now, one old friend is gone to California and the other has moved 1 hour and 10 minutes north.

I have no other reason to go to Manhattan ever again and couldn't be farther from it, especially around this time. Watch the whole video if you haven't already and you'll hear what I'm saying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI


Only in New York City. But this is not the real New York.

I've often said, whether on my show or in blogs that. only in a SICK place like Manhattan, you could be a convicted rapist, an illegal immigrant who drove drunk and wiped out an entire family of six or even a pedophile, once you tell a tolerant liberal that you're a Republican/conservative you will then find out how INTOLERANT ILL-liberal liberals can be.

The people in this video are the same kind of people who allowed a Muslim anti-American rally in 2006, where they burned flags and chanted "Death To America" right on the same city streets.

Did we hear any jeers or boos in that video? Nooooooooo!

Only in New York City.

Don't get me wrong. I love the city. I love the beauty of it. I love the energy of it. I love Central Park, Bryant Park, the museums, the comedy clubs, the food, the Empire State Building, Brooklyn Bridge and Times Square. I love BBQ ribs at Brother Jimmy's and cheese burgers at PJ Clarke's. Trust me, there's a lot to love.

But I can't stand the people. Especially the ones who are in this video. This is not the real New York. This is not the New York where I come from.

These losers, who call themselves the intellectual elite (although you might think differently with the intelligent middle fingers that are counted in this video), DO NOT represent me as a New Yorker. These are people who elected Mayor Dinkins out of white guilt/black pride. Dinkins, in just four short years, drove the city further into the gutter. Then, the same ILL-liberals secretly cheered when their one bedroom condo dollar values soared under a Giuliani administration. They're the same disgusting, despicable, liberals who would call you a racist if you told them you wouldn't vote for Barack Insane Obama.

Meanwhile, these intolerant, ill-liberals remain idle and silent when faced with sexism regarding Sarah Palin. You know, it's racist that a woman at a McCain rally would call Obama an Arab (although it's still up in the air whether or not that woman was an Obama plant to set McCain off) but it's IS alright when a group of degenerates want to sport "Palin's a cunt" t-shirts at Obama's rallies. And what about the comments from Obama himself, who claims McCain is "out of touch" and "can't use a computer" implying that he's old?

I ask you intolerant, ill-liberal liberals, is John McCain a victim of AGEISM? Or is that ISM above your pay-grade???

I'll say this again, the fact that McCain can't use a computer because his shoulders were broken by the Vietcong is a plus. Because it will be one less politician in Washington who won't be on Craigslist looking for whores.

Only in New York City.

Not my city. Not the New York that I know.

Mr.L

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

OBAMA CLAIMS HE WROTE THE FTC- LIE?


MR.L’s TAVERN 23 this Saturday night at 9:30pm EST. on ChimpsyRadio. www.chimpsyradio.com/ctl.html http://mrltavern.podomatic.com

I thought McCain did well in the second debate last night, especially on the economic issues. I have a feeling McCain is waiting to really pounce on Obama in the third debate. Brit Hume claimed that McCain lost. I’d personally like to cancel Brit Hume like a subscription of Newsweek for such an absurd analysis.
Laddies and Lasses, I caught one major LIE that Obama told last night. I don’t know if you did either. Here it is from the transcript where McCain and Obama responded to a question regarding the bailout. Laddies and Lasses, anyone with a one half of a brain knows that all roads that to this economic crisis begin with Fannie and Freddie. Here’s what Obama said:
“I wrote to Secretary Paulson, I wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke, and told them this is something we have to deal with, and nobody did anything about it. A year ago, I went to Wall Street and said we've got to re-regulate, and nothing happened.”
When I looked further into the matter, I found that he claims he wrote the letter on October 17th 2007. In past press releases, Obama has stated that he wrote the FTC and asked them to “investigate subprime lenders to determine whether minority borrowers have been victims of discrimination.”
First of all, I wish we could all SEE the letter. Wouldn’t you like to see it? But, even if it does exist, why it would mean that he lied about it last night. If he did write it, just a year ago when the bubble was about to burst, it would mean that he wanted more minorities to get mortgages just on the principle that they are minorities.
Why, if we looked at what Obama said last night and then read the so-called letter that he wrote, we would need to ask ourselves what does regulation mean to Obama? Does it actually mean DE-regulate to him. :
On June 28, 2008, Obama told the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, "We have to stabilize the housing market. And the Latino community as well as the African-American community was particularly hard hit when it comes to foreclosures.”

It’s as clear as the blue sky that Obama wasn’t talking about regulating banks because they were lending out too much money to people who couldn’t afford the mortgages. Or, that perhaps banks shouldn’t have been lending 120% and engaging in poor due diligence. No…

The only issue that mattered to Obama (which is hard to detect in all of his double speak) was whether or not minority borrowers were being discriminated against and if Latino or black home owners were going through “unfair” foreclosure. Perhaps he wanted to give them more of a break than they already got? Perhaps if he was president, he would let some of these buyers, some who were living well out of their means, too stupid to read the note or have a lawyer present when signing, off the hook and have us pay their debt for them.

I will remind you that there was a clause in the first bailout bill that wanted to grant amnesty to over 500,000 illegal immigrants who up and left their distressed homes and went back to where ever the fuck they came from.

On this issue alone, Obama exposes his far left ideology that wants to keep giving more to the deadbeats and let the sucker, the hard-working responsible taxpayer, to pick up the check.

He’s no moderate.

He’s a stealth liberal.

He’s an economic dunce.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

IS PALIN PLAYING POSSUM???

I was on the phone with Lis Wiehl of Fox News. Lis was filling in for Steve Malzberg, a popular conservative radio talk show host here in New York. Basically, I called into give my assessment of the Vice Presidential debates tomorrow night. Ladies and Gentlemen, step right up! It’s…

SARAH BARRACUDA PALIN vs. SLOPPY JOE BIDEN.

I don’t know about you but I’d rather be a “barracuda” than a “sloppy Joe”.

Anyways, I believe that this debate will be watched more than the first McCain/Obama debate that went down last Friday. No question, the whole world will be watching. Why? It’s the only VP debate and BOTH candidates have so much to lose.

So what was Mr.L’s assessment to Ms. Weihl?

Playing possum.

I’m taking a gamble when I say this but, Sarah Palin, and the entire McCain campaign, have been “playing possum” with the national knee jerk liberal news media. John McCain knows what the liberal media did to him. After all, for many of us conservatives, McCain wasn’t our first choice. Since our “come to Jesus” moment, we can recall that, during the primaries, the media held McCain up like their darling.

We knew this was a set up from the get-go. They were setting McCain up for the ultimate fall. They patted Gramps on the head until he was nominated and, when he was, they turned on him like rabid pit bulls. All of a sudden, they brought up everything. They brought up his age, McCain/(enter) and his association Keating Five. The latter for which he was long ago exonerated.

They played possum.

But it didn’t work. John McCain is a man who spent time in solitary confinement in a Viet-Cong prison. When you spent time in a room the size of a box you know how to stay alive. You know how to fight.

Flash forward to the present.

Sarah Palin is playing possum.

This is just one man’s humble opinion. I could be right, I could be wrong. I’d rather be any of those two than be left.

Sarah Palin, an avid hunter, knows what playing possum is all about. It’s the art of apparent death. It’s a defense mechanism. Play dead, the predator thinks your dead you live another day and figure out when to strike out at your opponent.

Think it can’t be applied to presidential politics? Think again.

The media underestimated Palin before. They did it from the moment that John McCain picked her. They commented that she wasn’t ready. They doubted whether or not she could deliver a home run speech at the RNC. They doubted whether or not she could hold the public’s attention. McCain’s rallies, which only had 2-5,000 people in attendance pre-Palin, now average 10 to 12, 0000. Not to mention her appearance in Flordia, which drew 70,000 people.

You see where I’m going with this?

You saw the Katie Couric interview. What do you think? Do you really believe that Palin doesn’t know what McCain stands for specifically? And why should Sarah Palin or John McCain reveal ANYTHING to a person who once had the Clintons over to her Park Avenue apartment for a sleepover?

And why should Palin even tell this woman, who’s just one appendage of the Obama campaign, who let SLOPPY JOE slide when he told her that “FDR was president during the great depression” or “I’d like to introduce Barack America”, what newspapers she reads?

They attacked her. They attacked her kids.

Play possum. Let them think you’re stupid Sarah.

It’s worked for you so many times before.
And when the time is right, pull out the shotgun and blow his fucking head off.

Monday, September 29, 2008

NO MORE HELP! Liberal Fiscal Policies Coming Home To Roost!

I, Mr.L, subscribe to the Newt Gingrich philosophy regarding the bailout plan. That is, simply, I think it sucks. The main reason that I'm against this bill is because there's no proof that the billions will actually solve the problem. A friend of mine recently reminded me of the old saying which applies to this economic problem at hand.

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help"

The punch line to that is, if anyone says that to you, run and don't walk from them.

Help? It's a four letter word. It is how we got here. The "I gotta help" mentality of liberalism. Jimmy Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act. Bill Clinton and the so called Clinton "changes" in his administration in 1995 which advocated for subprime loans. Liberals like Barack Obama who worked for law firms Miner, Barnhill & Galland who were hell-bent for leather trying to get minorities in homes. These firms "helped" by suing the banks with discrimination charges if they didn't lend money to unqualified black or Hispanic buyers. You know, the mentality of giving them the home due to the color of their skin and not the color green in their wallets!

The same liberals, Obama, Pelosi, Boxer, Frank, Reid, who wanted to CUT AND RUN in Iraq are now trying to CUT AND RUN from their own irresponsibly horrid ideologies and economic policies. They want to CUT AND RUN from the blame and pawn it off on Bush, Republicans and Wall Street Tycoons. Now, I'm not saying that the Wall Street money honeys and daddies don't deserve the blame, but what about the ordinary irresponsible average asshole? They are not immune from being corrupt. They are just as much to blame for running the country's economy into the ground. They did so by taking bad loans, buying "McMansions", not understanding the terms of loans, having bad credit and then, for some close to 1 million illegal immigrants, literally walked away from their responsibilities and went back to "their country".

None of them are mentioning the average citizen. They keep saying "rich bankers", "wall street tycoons" etc. They're actually advocating for more bad lending practices and offering MORE HELP to distressed homeowners.

Do you personally know anyone who has been forclosed on? I don't. Not only do I not know anyone but, I don't know ANYONE who knows anyone who has.

It's liberals & even Bush who are using fear and leaving behind reason by bascially claiming that, if this bill doesn't pass, the four horsemen of the apocalypse ride up on America. According to them, business won't be able to make payroll, people won't be able to buy cars and home prices will drop. Bullshit!

I would think that actions could be taken to help small business owners make their payroll if need be. I think most will agree with me when I say that home prices NEED to come down. Currently, in the suburbs of New York, a two bedroom co-apt or condo in an good area goes for roughly a cool 300k. That's absurd. And a homeowner can't come and cry to me that they want to sell and "can't get what they want for it" . There's a owner on my block who bought his 2 family house in 1970 for 50k and wants 800k for it. Wake up! The days of "flipping" are over.

And what about liberals like Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi who, all of a sudden, care about the automotive industry and whether or not you can buy a car? I would think that liberal greenies wouldn't give a crap whether or not the auto industry could go under. After all, that would mean less cars on the road would help global warming, right?

What exactly did people do before credit when they wanted to buy a car or a house? They had to save money. Put their own money into the deal. You know, something called a down payment. It might be that Americans will have to be introduced to an old concept that they don't quite like and that is, fiscal conservatism. You want a car? Well, you're going to have to save for it. If you can't make a down payment, well, you're going to have to buy a shabanger instead of a Lexus and fix that baby up until you can buy a better car.

It's clear that fiscal liberalism has run a muck. Fiscal conservatism will save the nation. It's going to take time. But just like this crisis began took over ten years to come to a head, it will take that long to fix it. No quick fixes. No easy solutions.

No more help.

http://mrltavern.podomatic.com

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

WHAT SARAH WOULD'VE SAID

This week Macmooddidajihad comes to America once again and is given a platform to spew his hate and anti Israel and American rhetoric at the headquarters of the toothless tiger we like to call the United Nations. If you read into his speech you'll see that the American left and most jilted Ron Paul voters share the same sentiment as the middle eastern Hitler in platform shoes.

He spoke of the "evil Zionists murders, American empire nearing it's end, freeing Palestine and the withdrawal US troops from Iraq." Scroll through the top myspace blogs and you'll see liberals and jilted Ron Paulies spewing the same shit.

I'm most disappointed and disillusioned with liberal Jews here in New York who politicked Sarah Palin and denied her a chance to speak at an anti-AM rally. This, of course, was due to Hillary Clinton being invited at this rally as well. Hillary made a non-partisan issue a partisan one, refused to attend and the liberal Jewish organizations honored Clinton by un-inviting Palin.

If you're Jewish or someone who "stands with Israel", please don't come to this blog and call me anti-Semite. I understand why we're allies with Israel. But what are we getting out of it? I've had Jewish friends all of my life and I've always asked them, why are you a liberal Democrat? Why do you support a political party of liberals who continue to hang Israel out to dry? Why do you support a political group who endorse "talking" to those who want to wipe your people off the map? Why don't you support Republicans or conservatives who continually support your home country and bend over backwards for your people?

I never get a straight answer. Below is the speech that Sarah Palin would give if she was allowed. It's clear she gets it. Liberals and Jewish Organizations who have pledged their allegiance to the Democratic Party, as usual, don't.


I am honored to be with you and with leaders from across this great country — leaders from different faiths and political parties united in a single voice of outrage.

Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York — to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan — and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him.

He must be stopped.

The world must awake to the threat this man poses to all of us. Ahmadinejad denies that the Holocaust ever took place. He dreams of being an agent in a "Final Solution" — the elimination of the Jewish people. He has called Israel a "stinking corpse" that is "on its way to annihilation." Such talk cannot be dismissed as the ravings of a madman — not when Iran just this summer tested long-range Shahab-3 missiles capable of striking Tel Aviv, not when the Iranian nuclear program is nearing completion, and not when Iran sponsors terrorists that threaten and kill innocent people around the world.

The Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is running at least 3,800 centrifuges and that its uranium enrichment capacity is rapidly improving. According to news reports, U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Iranians may have enough nuclear material to produce a bomb within a year.

The world has condemned these activities. The United Nations Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend its illegal nuclear enrichment activities. It has levied three rounds of sanctions. How has Ahmadinejad responded? With the declaration that the "Iranian nation would not retreat one iota" from its nuclear program.

So, what should we do about this growing threat? First, we must succeed in Iraq. If we fail there, it will jeopardize the democracy the Iraqis have worked so hard to build, and empower the extremists in neighboring Iran. Iran has armed and trained terrorists who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, and it is Iran that would benefit from an American defeat in Iraq.

If we retreat without leaving a stable Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions will be bolstered. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons — they could share them tomorrow with the terrorists they finance, arm, and train today. Iranian nuclear weapons would set off a dangerous regional nuclear arms race that would make all of us less safe.

But Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world's most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. Together, Iran and its terrorists are responsible for the deaths of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s, in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s, and in Iraq today. They have murdered Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians, and other Muslims who have resisted Iran's desire to dominate the region. They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish.

Iran is responsible for attacks not only on Israelis, but on Jews living as far away as Argentina. Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial are part of Iran's official ideology and murder is part of its official policy. Not even Iranian citizens are safe from their government's threat to those who want to live, work, and worship in peace. Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging, and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments.

It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric. Under Ahmadinejad's rule, Iranian women are some of the most vulnerable citizens.

If an Iranian woman shows too much hair in public, she risks being beaten or killed.

If she walks down a public street in clothing that violates the state dress code, she could be arrested.

But in the face of this harsh regime, the Iranian women have shown courage. Despite threats to their lives and their families, Iranian women have sought better treatment through the "One Million Signatures Campaign Demanding Changes to Discriminatory Laws." The authorities have reacted with predictable barbarism. Last year, women's rights activist Delaram Ali was sentenced to 20 lashes and 10 months in prison for committing the crime of "propaganda against the system." After international protests, the judiciary reduced her sentence to "only" 10 lashes and 36 months in prison and then temporarily suspended her sentence. She still faces the threat of imprisonment.

Earlier this year, Senator Clinton said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is in the forefront of that" effort. Senator Clinton argued that part of our response must include stronger sanctions, including the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist organization. John McCain and I could not agree more.

Senator Clinton understands the nature of this threat and what we must do to confront it. This is an issue that should unite all Americans. Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period. And in a single voice, we must be loud enough for the whole world to hear: Stop Iran!

Only by working together, across national, religious, and political differences, can we alter this regime's dangerous behavior. Iran has many vulnerabilities, including a regime weakened by sanctions and a population eager to embrace opportunities with the West. We must increase economic pressure to change Iran's behavior.

Tomorrow, Ahmadinejad will come to New York. On our soil, he will exercise the right of freedom of speech — a right he denies his own people. He will share his hateful agenda with the world. Our task is to focus the world on what can be done to stop him.

We must rally the world to press for truly tough sanctions at the U.N. or with our allies if Iran's allies continue to block action in the U.N. We must start with restrictions on Iran's refined petroleum imports.

We must reduce our dependency on foreign oil to weaken Iran's economic influence.

We must target the regime's assets abroad; bank accounts, investments, and trading partners.

President Ahmadinejad should be held accountable for inciting genocide, a crime under international law.

We must sanction Iran's Central Bank and the Revolutionary Guard Corps — which no one should doubt is a terrorist organization.

Together, we can stop Iran's nuclear program.

Senator McCain has made a solemn commitment that I strongly endorse: Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise that the United States and Israel will honor, against any enemy who cares to test us. It is John McCain's promise and it is my promise.

Thank you.

Obama Loves Economic Crisis

I'm no economist but it's clear to me, when the financial meltdown occurred this week, Barack Obama and his campaign loved it. Liberals usually do. Liberal Democratic candidates, stealth liberals like Obama, have time after time, election after election, benefited from a unhealthy economy.


Make no mistake, America is economically illiterate. Proof of that came this week when some of the polls shifted slightly to Obama when the bailout occurred. Why do I think most are economically illiterate? They think that Obama will somehow be able to heal the economy and that John McCain is behind the eight ball. They think like this because Obama tells them so.


Obama, stealth liberal, will clearly raise taxes if elected bringing the economy to it's knees. He claims he will be taxing the people making over 250 k a year who he claims are "the rich". It's populist nonsense. It's one of the reasons Bill Clinton got elected in 1992, even though as economists look back on it now, the economy in 1991 was beginning to rebound not falter. Back to his tax plan. What about the some 50 MILLION people who are in this country who don't pay taxes? That's 35% of this country freeloading on the rest of us. That's Obamanomics. No solutions and more populist rhetoric.


Obama still, as I write this, has yet to take a clear position on whether or not the bailout was the right thing to do. You know it was wrong. I know it was wrong.


John McCain also knows it's wrong. He took a clear position against the bailout and is calling for the heads of those who have treated the American economy "like a casino". Not only is he against the bailouts of Fannie & Freddie, he co-sponsored a bill and had the foresight to see the mortgage meltdown coming years ago.


McCain foresaw the impending Fannie Freddie doom two years before it happened, and co-sponsored legislation that would have required greater oversight of the mortgage lending entities. But, of course, that legislation was torpedoed by the Democrats, never making it out of committee. Obama did nothing to speak out at the time in behalf of the legislation, and would not sign on as a co-sponsor.


Again, not a reformer. Not an agent of change.


Here's exactly what McCain said on the Senate floor in 2005:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay. S. 190 [109th]: Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005

Last Action: Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.

Status: Dead

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Further more, why should hard working people who have fought and kept their homes bail out the 2-3% of those who have gone to foreclosure? Some of these people shouldn't been given a mortgage in the first place. Most were granted mortgages due to the policies of UBER liberals such as Barney Frank, Charlie Schumer, Bernie Sanders and minority groups who pressured banks into giving more mortgages to minorities just for the sake of being a different race or color and not their financial qualifications.


And Obama wants you and me, some of us who have yet to own a home and will probably not own one in a long time due to the now strict lending rules, to bail these bad loans out?


It's clear, between the two candidates, who has taken a clear and sound position on this mess. It's clear to me that McCain will clean up this financial mess in this country. Yet another reason to vote for McCain/Palin.

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

BATTLE 9/11 "TRUTH" with COMMON SENSE


Photobucket
Once again, 9/11 is upon us. I speculate that the people at MSNBC will not run all day coverage of 9/11/2001. Nor do I think that they will broadcast, like they did last year, the unfolding of the morning of 9/11/2001. I may be wrong but, I don’t think MSNBC or CNN would like to show the images of planes going into buildings this year. Perhaps it might make the viewer think, 7 short years after 9/11 and one Muhammaden slip by Obama bumbling about his "Muslim faith" and the fact that his middle name is Hussein, just how absurd it is that this man is even being considered for the job of President.
If you don’t wish to watch coverage like this please tune into Chimpsy Radio. All day on 9/10 & 9/11, we will remember 9/11 in our own way
www.chimpsyradio.com/ctl.html. It will begin at 1pm Est and end with my show at 9:30pm Est. I will speak about Obama and ask not where Obama was but, what exactly what was he thinking just days after 9/11. I will not be talking about 9/11 truthers. Been there, done that so many times.
Of course, with every year approaching 9/11 the truthers come out. I’ve often advocated beating the fuck out of them when they approach you with your ideas but I think now it’s just a matter of tuning them out. Some of you may know them. They might even be your friends and while I’ve ended a couple of friendships over this scurrilous viewpoint. No, I don’t think you should do the same. But if you must engage them, please bring common sense. The truthers hate that shit.
For instance, truthers like to make wild claims that building 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. First, do you really think that a truther understands laws of psychics? Why bother with that? Simply use common sense. Ask them, can you explain to me why collapse would begin at exactly the point where damage was inflicted, since the conspirators would have had to been able to predict exactly where debris from the fallen North and South Towers would strike WTC 7? And while the makers of the documentary Loose Brains comment that WTC 7 "fell straight down, into a convenient pile," the TRUTH is that the pile of debris was 12 stories high and 150 meters across, hardly the kind of "convenient pile" described by shit for brains like Dylan Avery and Corey Rowe.
These brain dead losers will go as far to say that not only WTC 7 but the WTC 1&2 were controlled demolitions as well. Again, common sense. Please say: Dumbass, since the building was wired for a controlled demolition and targeted to be hit by airplanes why not just do the controlled demolition, ditch the airplanes and blame it on the terrorists of your choice? Go further. Doesn’t prepping a building for demolition takes considerable time and effort? Usually a building targeted for demolition has been abandoned for considerable time and partially gutted to allow explosives intimate contact with the structure of the building. But since all of the WTC buildings were occupied right up to 9/11, how did the government gain access to wire 3 towers for complete demolition without anyone noticing? Imagine trying to sneak wires and bombs into buildings while thousands of people are working in offices, riding the elevators and milling about in the halls that scenario is HIGHLY unlikely.
They love to start talking shit about the Pentagon.
Their claim that the plane never crashed and that a missile or a bomb did this damage. We’ve heard it before and the mentally impaired like to refer to this as Pentegate. Again, remain composure and let common sense prevail. Say this: You poor fool. A speeding Boeing 757 will not leave a snow-angel style impression of itself in a concrete building (vs. the mostly-glass exterior of the WTC buildings, which did leave an outline of a plane). And the contention that no remains of Flight 77 were found at the crash site is simply absurd. Many pictures taken of the area around the Pentagon crash site clearly show parts of an airplane in the wreckage. Allyn Kilsheimer, the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after Flight 77, spoke about his own observations as crashed. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane

with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box. His eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts."
You might want to follow up that factotum with: I guess Kilsheimer is just another Bush loving nea-con to you, huh? Who made up the fact that he was traumatized by holding peoples arms and legs? Take your fuckin medicine.
When discussing Flight 93 with a truther it might be difficult to keep composed. For most of us, Flight 93 was a valiant effort by heroes to fight back and stop further destruction and loss of life. Not to a truther. I know, it may be hard at this point to fight the urge to take the anti American piece of shit by the throat and choke the stink out of em! But, common sense is like the force and may it be with you.
Truthers have often claimed Flight 93 had landed safely in Cleveland. This has been rejected by every credible news outlet in the country. Then the unsupported assertions that the main body of the engine and other large parts of the plane turned up miles from the main wreckage site was too far away to have resulted from an ordinary crash. This is incorrect because the engine was found only 300 yards from the main crash site and its location was consistent with the direction in which the plane had been traveling. Let’s not forget the black box for the flight records the struggle onboard preceding the plane’s crash. Those are facts. Let common sense prevail: Excuse me you infinitesimal minded crack pot. Why would the same U.S. government that allegedly destroyed the WTC shoot down Flight 93 before it could cause similar damage to other buildings?
I can sit here and go on pages more. It’s your choice whether you wish to debate this subject, beat someone to a pulp or turn the other cheek and ignore. I personally recommend ignoring the ignorant. Remember, these are the same people who believed that George Bush was responsible for Hurricane Katrina by blowing up the levees because he hated black people. These are also the same people who for years believed that JFK was killed by the government rather than a lone and known Communist. And to them, the government that killed JFK is always a conservative government because, after all, they’re evil. Meanwhile, the JFK administration was liberal democratic. I guarantee you that if JFK was a conservative republican, Oliver Stone would’ve romanticized Lee Harvey Oswald instead of vilifying the government.
Finally, pity these fools. Seriously. Some conspiracy theorists themselves don’t really believe what they are saying. The main appeal of 9/11 conspiracies is that they are easy to understand and to accept. Like children, they are easily led to believe this easy brush off of a catastrophic event in which we, citizens of the United States, were the target. For most of us proud Americans who understand this catastrophe and know who did it to us, we realize how precious and fragile human life and liberty are. And perhaps that may be the greatest rebuttal to those who wish to live life pursuing delusions.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

MICHAEL SAVAGE NEEDS TO STOP EATING BAD CURRY


I believe it’s necessary for me to write about this to show others how passionate and confident I am about Sarah Palin.

I will tell you more about how I really feel about Sarah Palin in my next show Mr.L’s Tavern 20, that will air this September the 10th, 9:30pm Est on CHIMPSY RADIO and re-airing specially for 9/11/2008. All the hosts on Chimpsy Radio will broadcast new shows in observance of 9/11.

http://chimpsyradio.com/ctl.html

I’ve been listening to Michael Savage for years now. I don’t agree with him on everything but I do on most things. I’ve defended him when he was fighting CAIR and even defended him when he was lynched for his autism comments.

Savage published a new book on Monday of last week and I ordered two of them immediately. By the following Monday, I demanded a refund and a stop order.

Why did I do this? Why do I feel this way?

I thought his commentary on Sarah Palin went over the line. It was something that I would expect at Daily Kos and not his show or website. The rumors that have surrounded Palin have been just that and probably created by organizations like MoveOn.org and Media Matters who have single-handedly tried to ruin Savage’s career.

So far he’s devoted two shows with harsh criticism of this fine and accomplished woman based on a hypothetical. That’s right, Michael Savage has sided with the “mid-stream media” (as he has dubbed them) by using hyperbole to push the notion that McCain will drop dead in his first days in office. Pretty ridiculous. Pretty cheap.

And if that happened, Palin could turn around and pick an elder statesmen for her Vice President. After all, isn’t that what Barack Obama has done already?

Also, we are voting for the top of the ticket are we not?

Savage’s comments about Palin were also extremely insulting. Every time that he’s referred to her it’s been as “this woman” or that her only experience was “pushing a sled”. When in fact, she’s not just “this woman” she’s a governor.

I would also like to point out that, as far as this election goes, Savage has been wrong most of the time. He said Barack Obama would never get this far. He predicted that Obama would pick Hillary as his running mate to create a juggernaut ticket. Didn’t happen. Finally, last summer he declared McCain was washed up and finished. Nope.

What was funniest to me was when he began to run down the list of others McCain should’ve picked. Kay Bailey Hutchinson was one. Four months ago, I heard him devote 40 mins to trashing Hutchinson and called her a Rhino over some bill that she helped pass. Next, was his so called favorite Mitt Romney. Funny, I didn’t hear him say a peep about Mitt Romney when John McCain was still deciding.

Palin is a true conservative. For two years now, Savage has been blowing out his vocal chords about getting a true conservative to run with McCain. So now you’ve got one. So shut your mouth.

Also, Palin IS energy. As Savage once said, “the GOP/conservative party is like a dying cancer patient.” If that’s true, Sarah Palin is the chemo it desperately needed.

Savage has stated that we need “strong experienced leaders” for these troubled times to stand up to strong men like Putin who hunt Tiger and Bear in the wild. I will say it again, at the TOP of the GOP ticket stands a strong and more experienced McCain than the top of the left ticket with Obama.

I think Palin would somehow impress Putin. I think he would see her as a strong woman who’s not afraid to take off the pant suit and strap on the gun and, possibly, go hunt with him.

I’ll probably still listen Savage. I will defend continue his right to speak his peace. But enough is enough.

Sunday, August 31, 2008

WHY GOD IS A CONSERVATIVE

When you have leftist scum like Michael Moore go on another leftist scum like Keith Olberman's show and says that he believes "there's a God in heaven for sending Gustav on the week of the GOP convention", you have ask yourself, where are the liberal's fucking heads at? How low does the left have to stoop? To actually be thanking God, a God that leftists like SICKO doesn't even believe exists, for a natural disaster in order to disrupt an opposing political party is quite sick.

That is one way Gustav might help the GOP. To show independent swing voters, who are genuinely proud of their country, who don't buy into conspiracy theories, just how radical, hateful and bi partisan the left really is.

Another way Gustav may help the GOP? Republican Governor Bobby Jindal. The governor has proven himself as a man who is a true leader who has taken the bull by the balls, organized and made evacuations MANDATORY! It also shows you that a little common sense goes a long way. If a category 4 storm is heading for your state, GET OUT! It certainly pays off that when Katrina hit, there was an incompetent Democratic Mayor and Governor who were not proactive as Katrina headed for Louisiana. So the people of America may be able to see the difference.

Katrina=Democrat/Disaster/Death. Gustav= Republican/Resolve/Refuge.

Another way is, the storm may, I stress may, be downgraded by the time it is supposed to hit. I hope it does. As a conservative/ Republican, I don't want to see people die for the sake of partisan politics. However, some in the liberal media are frothing at the mouth because this may be damaging to John McCain, as if somehow John McCain has control over the weather.

Lastly, Bobby Jindal reminds us of the executive responsibilities that Governors carry as being stewards of a state. Gov. Sarah Palin has this experience and brings it to the John McCain table. Biden does not.

The choice of Sarah Palin reminds us that John McCain isn't George W. Bush. If he was, his choice for VP would've been Colin Powell, Condie Rice or Tom Ridge. With Obama picking Biden, a man who is considered by many in Washington as just another typical Beltway boy, he's proven that he's more close to the Washington establishment than we may think.

I don't know about you but, I don't want two lawyers running this country.
McCain/Palin 2008

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

ALL ABOUT EVE...ahem...HILLARY & REAL UNITY

Photobucket

So I watched Hillary Clinton, give her speech last night. To her credit, she was the only speaker to breathe some life into this God awful convention. It's not just me, a conservative, who thinks so. The American people, liberal or conservative, do as well. Ratings for this week's coverage on ALL the networks have been abysmal.

I'm a movie buff and watching Slick Hilly last night, I couldn't help think of the 1950 film with Bettie Davis called "All About Eve". It's been a couple of years since I last saw it, so I went to Wikipedia to refresh my memory. I realized that, if you took the characters of Margo Channing (Bette Davis) and Eve Harrington (Anne Baxter), replaced them with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, you see that life is really imitating art in this campaign.
So I did. Here's the switch:
Hillary Clinton is one of the biggest politicians in America. But despite her unmatched success, she is beginning to show her age. After a speech one night on the campaign trail, she encounters a young man named Barack Obama. He claims to be her biggest admirers from Chicago, but gradually, Obama shows that he is a scheming and duplicitous man who plans to take from Hillary everything she holds dear: her colleagues, voters and her political career and fame. Obama becomes a political star and is presented with the party's nomination.
I've obviously tailored other aspects of the plot description and if you want to see the real plot line just plug it into Wikipedia or just watch the movie. I suggest doing the latter if you have the time because they don't make movies like that anymore.
Last night, while party unity flowed from one side of Hilly's mouth, this was coming out of Billy's:
"Suppose you're a voter, and you've got candidate X and candidate Y. Candidate X agrees with you on everything, but you don't think that candidate can deliver on anything at all. Candidate Y you agree with on about half the issues, but he can deliver. Which candidate are you going to vote for?" He's also said he will not attend Obama's speech on Thursday.

Sounds like some jilted mofos. I'd like to channel the great Bette Davis when she said, "Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy night." Or, for Obama and the DNC, a bumpy couple of months. It is clear, not from her miele-mouthed speech about health care and women's rights, but from the supporters in the audience who demonstrated to Obama and Howard Dean that, once again, they've made a grave mistake. Because, as a God fearing conservative and registered Republican, the one thing I feared more than God was Obama picking Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

All this talk about party unity from Hillary or the Lib-Dims is bullshit. It's clear that WE, the Republicans and conservatives, are the only ones who understand unity. Most of us didn't want John McCain as our nominee and fought against him, but now it is he and it is WE who understand the common goal that we are fighting for here. WE, the conservative republicans, understand the danger of an Obama presidency and refuse a man with no experience and with ties to terrorists and WE WILL GLADLY take a man with a robust resume who served his country.

No matter who John McCain picks as his VP this week, at least his will not be chosen for him by Russia. That's right. It is clear to me that Obama choose Biden because of the problems in Georgia (as I write this, Russians are threatening to roll into Poland) and Obama's obvious lack of foreign policy experience. However, his camp is wrong again. While Sloppy Joe has been a so called "expert" on foreign affairs by the MSN, in reality, he's often been wrong on most of his foreign policy decisions.

And so what if McCain picks Mitt Romney? Who cares? So what if they had a tumultuous campaign against each other? At least Romney, or any other Republican candidates for that matter, never, EVER said that John McCain wasn't ready to lead and unfit for command. Biden has of Obama. Hillary stated it as well.

If John McCain was watching Hillary last night, as I'm sure he was, he will have a tough decision to either stick with the person who he's had his mind on all this time or, pick a female wild card to tap into the menopause vote.
If he does, it's clear to me that it will be "cha ching" for Yoda in November.

We'll have to wait and see.
Mr.L

Saturday, August 23, 2008

JOE BIDEN. WHAT A GIFT.

Joe Biden? Hmmm…
"You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking," he said with a C-SPAN camera just inches from his unbridled mouth.
On Obama:
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he enthused. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
"I don't believe he's ready. The job for the Presidency should have a candidate who is going to have "on the job" training"
Joe Biden urged John Kerry to pick John McCain as his VP when he was running for President in 2004.
I can't wait for the McCain attack ads on these very memorable quotes from none other than Sen. Joe Biden.
This goes to show you just how much trouble Obama and his campaign believe they're in right now. LOL. And the media continues to question a McCain/Romney ticket because those two didn't get along?
Don't pee down my leg and tell me it's raining.
The agent of change was forced to pick a white man, who's been more of a Washington insider than McCain ever was, and that's no joke. Biden has been in Washington far longer than McCain ever has.
People, someone once said "Beauty fades, dumb is forever." Whoever said it, was brilliant. I think Obama understands that his campaign has been run on absolutely nothing. Running around the country and yelling "change" and "hope" means nothing. Subconsciously, Obama and his campaign, by picking Biden, knows that change means nothing and that he has no real substance and needs a competent, experienced white man to bail him out.
You'd expect after all of Obama's "rock star" status he'd have a great lead in the polls. He doesn't. It's not because he's black. It's because he's an elitist. Elitism is the problem that progressive liberals have had on the presidential level. In fact, it's often a burden. Haughty taughty liberalism is a disaster.
This is just my prediction. I believe that John McCain and his Vice Presidential running mate will deliver an upset to Democrats of grandiose proportions. And he's going to do it with the help of Hillary Clinton supporters. Hillary knows that McCain might not have a great 4 years.
And in 2012, she'll return. Mark my words, her campaign slogan will be "I told you so".
Like I've stated on one of my shows, I'm at peace with the whole thing. It can go two ways. McCain can win and stop a full fledged Marxist take over in this country or Obama can win and ignite a conservative revolution like the country has ever seen.
Via con dios.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

JAR JAR or YODA? WHO'D YOU VOTE FOR? DECISION 2008. YOU DECIDE!

So who would you vote for?
Jar Jar Binks….
Photobucket

Or Yoda….
Photobucket


It’s pretty much a no brainier for me.

Like most, growing up as a kid, I loved the Star Wars films. For the most part, I still do. My favorite is “The Empire Strikes Back.” I thought the plot turn where the rebels lost at the end added something interesting to the narrative of the series. The Star Wars series is a staple of American pop culture. Ronald Reagan used it to name his anti missile defense plan in the 1980’s. When campaigning for President in 2000 against G.W. Bush, John McCain proclaimed that he was "Luke Skywalker trying to get out of the death star and we are going to win this election."

Hollywood progressives like Star Wars creator George Lucas, who are tucked in their own little galaxies far, far away, have used themes of war and evil and tagged them to America. Lucas apparently got so caught up in his progressive anti American political ideology, that he admitted the hidden themes in the final installment of the series, “Revenge of the Sith”, were all about “imperialistic American foreign policy.” So, it’s not a shock when I read that Lucas is an unabashed Barack Obama asshole buddy.

Barack Hussein Obama has been compared to a lot of other politcal figures in history. He’s been compared to JFK and Bobby Kennedy. The most laughable comparison to come from the lilliputians here on myspace and in the media is when they try to compare BHO to Abe Lincoln. LMAO. What makes it so funny? Abe Lincoln served FOUR two year terms as an Illinois representative. He also served in a milita. Honest Abe was never accused of getting a BJ from a male crack addict in the back a of a limo. He also freed slaves. BHO did community service (cricket sound), served four years in the Senate, two of the them were spent running for President. BHO wishes to enslave the American people and impose the tenants of Marxism on the entire country. I still have not seen one empowering and positive message that he has made to the black community. It’s pretty much the same old same old. Blame the evil white man. Change is a commin. In reality, BHO could be compared to Jimmy Carter. That’s not a good thing.

But back to Star Wars. When thinking of the great characters of Star Wars and applying them to those running for President today, I’m sure Lucas would like to believe BHO is more like Luke Skywalker, a young Jedi in training who will defeat the evil empire. The same evil empire and wanton captialist society that helped fill his coffers and helped him own half of Marin County, California. I’m sure in his progressive mind, John McCain is Chancellor Palpatine.

But for my money, BHO is nothing more than Jar Jar Binks. A bumbling oaf of a character with overly pronounced features. A nakedly ambitious and child-like idealist of a politician. Jar Jar was a character who came into the Star Wars saga, like Barack Obama into the poltical scene, from out of no where and for the sake of diversity. He had racial controversy attached to him as does BHO. Jar Jar was a character who StarWarsphiles didn’t get, didn’t think was relevant and didn’t fit.

And then there’s John McCain, ehm excuse me, Yoda. Like the green dynamic half pint, McCain may be old and wooden, but he’s potent. A trained warrior Jedi who has seen the battlefield in the theatre of war and in the theatre of Washington politics. Like Yoda, McCain is a familiar character, one that was introduced to us a long time ago in a galaxy or time far, far away. Like Yoda’s loyalty to the force, I do not question McCain’s patriotism or love of country. Also, John McCain was never accused of getting a BJ from a male crack addict in the back a of a limo.

Yep, a no brainer.

It’s a shame that 45%+ - of America has lost their brains.


Thursday, May 15, 2008

BOB BAR IS NOT THE ANSWER

I know there are some who are still worried about a John McCain presidency. I don’t have to go into the whole thing, we know it chapter and verse. Immigration, free trade and his history of animosity towards conservatives. Now some have been throwing around the name BOB BARR. Barr is the civil libertarian who left the GOP some years ago. He has announced his run for the presidency and I’m rather worried over how some of my fellow conservatives are, all of a sudden, getting on the Barr band-wagon.

Let me make this clear.

BOB BARR IS NOT THE ANSWER.

First of all, I would not be surprised if Bob Barr is a paid operative of rich liberals in the DNC and Howard Dean. Remember, the DNC and the .orgers have launched a mutli million dollar campaign to attack John McCain. Is Barr on the payroll? You’d also have to ask yourselves logically, do we need another Ross Perot type situation ala Clinton vs. Bush circa 1992? He could essentially turn out to be Ross Perot minus the money or the personality. He can’t raise money. He can’t win. Stop kidding yourselves. And back to my original point of him being a plant doesn’t sound too far off when you really think about it. I mean, what other perfect scenario would there be for liberals and Obama? Obama gets the nomination and now McCain will have to debate a Johnny come lately? It would be perfect for them.

What do you know about Barr?

Did you know that Bob Barr has just struck a deal with the ACLU? That’s right, the same ACLU that represents CAIR and organizations like NAMBLA. Bob Barr has formed an alliance with the ACLU since they are on the same page on privacy issues. He is against the national ID, “know your customer” banking systems and the citizen TIPS program.

But let’s back track a moment. Bob Barr has been lauded by conservatives as being anti gay rights correct? Well then why is he forming an alliance with the ACLU who not only condones but represents grown men who think it’s normal to bed young boys?

Confused? I sure as fuck am.

Did you know that Bob Barr teamed up with AL GORE for a policy address, sponsored by the MoveOn.org and libertarian Liberty Coalition? Barr is an outspoken critic of Bush on issues of national security. Here’s what MoveOn.org said about that event: “The speech will specifically point to domestic wiretapping and torture as examples of the administration's efforts to extend executive power beyond Congressional direction and judicial review,” according to a http://MoveOn.org press release. “The extent of bipartisan concern over these issues is highlighted by former Republican Rep. Bob Barr's introduction of the Vice President and by the organizations cosponsoring the speech.”

As a Republican, he was an advocate of the WAR ON DRUGS. He led a prohibition against medical marijuana. But now he’s a Libertarian. Isn’t the backbone of libertarianism that the government have little or no involvement in individual liberties? He led the way for government to take away individual rights for a cancer patient to smoke medical pot and now he’s a libertarian who believes in an ideology that would go against that.

I’m still confused.

Did you know that Bob Barr was married three times? His second marriage to then wife Gail ended in divorce and believed to be due to HIS infidelities. When asked about it in 1999, he refused to answer. Another rumor that has surfaced about Barr over the years has been if he is of mixed race. I have no problem with that. But could we at least know? Or do we have to play the guessing game like we do with Obama? I’d say it isn’t true but try doing a simple search into his background. Try finding something about him and his early life. Just go to Wikipedia. It should be on there, right? Not.

Conservatives, you’re going to do it again. This past summer, we vetted and cross referenced all of our candidates and beat the piss out of each other for the true conservative. We ended up with John McCain. I agree he’s not perfect. But he’s better than Obama, Hillary or the other phantom candidate Bob Barr.

So is this going to happen again this summer go around? Are pro McCainers going to go round robin with the Barr Bandwagon as to who’s more conservative? Are some of you going to get behind someone who doesn’t have a Chinamen’s chance of winning?

I won’t have it. I won’t participate. I know who my candidate is and my energies will be focusing on the conservative who McCain should pick for Vice Presidential candidate.

For me, that man is BOBBY JINDAL, governor of Louisana. This Punjabi Indian turned Catholic is conservative as the day is long. With McCain at 72, this is the guy who I would want to take over if the old codger, God forbid, kicked the bucket.

Here’s a little more about Jindal.

Graduated high school at 16.
Rhodes scholar with a Masters in Political Science at Oxford.
Married since 1997 and the father of three children.
The youngest sitting governor in the United States.
100 % against abortion. No exceptions.
Opposes embryonic stem cell research and cloning.
Voted for the Stelly Tax Plan.
Supported a constitutional amendment banning flag burning.
Sponsored the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act (H.R. 4761), a bill to eliminate the
moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling over the U.S. outer continental shelf, which prompted the watchdog group Republicans for Environmental Protection to issue him an environmental harm demerit.
Believes intelligence is the first line of defense against terrorism.
Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists.
Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses.
Voted YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts.
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date.
Prevent the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
.

MR.L's TAVERN 17: ELECTION OF "ISMS"

MR.L’s TAVERN 17 THE ELECTION OF “ISMS”
TOPICS: AMERICAN IDOL IS FIXED.
BALL OF CONFUSION: STILL RELEVANT TODAY.
COMPARING McCAIN/REV. HAGEE to OBAMA/REV. WRIGHT? I DON’T THINK SO.
HILLARY WILL NOT BRING DOWN OPEC.
EXPOSING A NEW “NATURAL” DRUG TARGETED AT YOUTH.


FOUND HERE:
http://mrltavern.podbean.com/2008/05/12/mrls-tavern-17-election-of-isms/


In this show, I expressed my dislike for Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always this way. Recently, I feel that he's become too lenient on some issues. A little too wishy/washy. And a little too soft. And if you watched his interview w/ Hillary Clinton. Also, he tends to have a "I'm Bill O'Reilly and you're not" manner about him. On occasion, he's even gone so far as to declare Michael Savage and Mark Levin "far right winged kooks". So with that said I thought to include this video sent to me this morning by a friend.
It's fair and balanced. You decide.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFdPRubbTs4

OBAMA: AUDACITY OF NOTHINGNESS

While we all said many things about Osama, excuse me Obama, I feel like there were some things that I left out. As I stated on the show, I've seen a lot of blogs and articles written on the subject of Obama. So I think I should add my two sense and talk about anything we may have left out or, perhaps, wasn't clear. And then you could, the reader/listener, add anything you feel I missed.
THE NAME GAME
I actually believe it is the LEAST of our worries regarding this man. But it does warrant a conversation. After all, the rambling rhetoric that he spews includes "opening a dialogue" with each other. In the blogs that I've read, I saw one blogger state that, because his mother was an atheist, Mr. O couldn't be a devout Muslim because they don't marry atheists. Good point. And if you don't know about his mother, Stanley, please refer to this article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi0703270151mar27/0/5157609.story?page=1
But here's a better point:
His mother was named Stanley because her father wanted a boy. According to those who knew her, she had nothing but contempt for her father, authority and men. She was married twice. Once to a Kenyan who named him Barack Hussein Obama. Why would someone who is a non practicing Muslim name their son with the names Barack and Hussein? Both names have DEEP meaning in the Islamic faith. If he was just a proud African, why didn't he call him Nelson after Mandela or Louis or Desmond? I think we should be asking why would a woman, who was a radical atheist/feminist, would allow her son to be named with 2 names that have deep religious meaning? Perhaps it was because his father was either a radical or actually WAS devout in the belief of Islam and, as Islam teaches, that women are like chattel. He would've DEMANDED it from her and DEMANDED that his son carry those names.
GOD, GRANT ME THE SERENITY TO CHANGE….
What can you say to these ObamaMentalCases? You ask them, "why are going to vote for him?". They'll respond, "he really represents change" or "he's offering something that the others aren't". But what is that? When looking at Obama, you have to follow the money. We can sit here and discuss the Red Chinese contributions made to Hillary's campaign. But that would be boring. Because after all, Obama is really the candidate who claims himself as being apart from all of that "big time D.C. corruption."
So, if he's really claiming to be that "change agent" against the oppressive "man", why was he involved with someone like Tony Rezko? You know, the old saying goes: "you are who you hang with."
Rezko, Syrian immigrant and slum lord, is considered in most Chicago circles as "the fixer" or a man who "makes things happen" for a price. He and Obama were involved with a real estate where Obama made a small financial killing. But the phantom behind this whole deal is non other than Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi. Washington Times identified Auchi as a global arms dealer and Iraqi billionaire who served as Saddam Hussein's principle international financial manipulator. In other terms, he was the bag man. He has engaged in unlawful activities" such as bribing "foreign governments and individuals prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom to turn opinion against the American-led mission to remove Saddam Hussein." He also helped "arrange for significant theft from the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program to smuggle weapons and dual-use technology into Iraq."
Political pundits have asked, why would Rezko and a Saddam protege, be interested in a rising U.S. politician who was also opposed to the ousting of Hussein by U.S. forces? Why would that billionaire lend that much money to Obama's fundraiser, Rezko, with the two buying adjacent properties from the same seller on the same day? Through various dealings, Rezko wound up owing Auchi more than $27 million. What did Auchi want in return? Perhaps a friend in the White House? Remember, both Rezko and Auchi are in the business of buying influence.
HOW GREEN WAS MY CHANGE?
I thought Obama's brand of change meant NOT cozying up to rouge dictators like we have in the past. So then who is Ralia Odinga? Obama has made several "special" trips to see Odinga in 2006. Odinga is the head of the Muslim Leaders Forum in Kenya. He has also made it clear that he will overthrow ANY legitimate Democratic government in Kenya, by whatever means necessary, in order to become President of Kenya FOR LIFE. If he is successful, Kenya will become the African Afghanistan.
But it's not only people like Odinga that Obama is willing to open policy of dialogue and accommodation. He has opposed listing Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization and proposed a grand bargain with Syria's rulers. He is even prepared to ignore two UN Security Council resolutions that require Iran to stop its uranium-enrichment program as a precondition for talks at the highest level. He has campaigned for a formal congressional move to prevent Bush from taking any military action against Tehran.
Obama has become the first major presidential candidate in 25 years not to commit himself to transferring the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Obama has promised to withdraw from Iraq in his first year in office meeting a key demand of ALL Islamic radical forces. He proposes to reverse policies that have taken shape over more than six decades under 12 successive American presidents.
PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT?
Eventhough he's only been a Senator, technically, since 2004, Obama has claimed to have more foreign policy experience than Clinton. If you talk to the ObamaMentalCases, they'll tell you he has more foreign policy experience than McCain. Mind you, half of his Senatorial tenure was spent running for the highest office in the land. Sound absurd?
Why would people who support Obama in this country, from all parties, liberal, conservative and independent, who have been starving for a real military leader, those who claim they'd prefer their leaders SERVED, want a candidate like Barack Hussein Obama over John Sydney McCain? It is clear to me that, out of the three candidates, Obama comes in a DISTANT THIRD to McCain's FIRST and Hillary's SECOND on the issue of national security.
How you could be a military person or have someone you love enlisted in the military and vote for Barack Hussein Obama is beyond me.
Please watch one of his campaign videos. Yes, that's right. He's actually stated that we CUT our space, nuclear and space defense programs. Here's the text:
"...I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it. Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending. Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."