Why No Mention of Obamagirl?

If the moonbats want to go out there and state as Allahpundit is saying, that putting pictures of white women around Obama somehow suggests racism, why isn't everyone pointing to Obamagirl? That's what got him his national exposure more so than his speech at the convention did. Most people aren't into politics like that to remember that speech but sticking that skank in a video with him sure did. Their real worry is that the image of the trainwrecks like Paris Hilton and Brittney Spears is going to stick. Adverstisers have known for decades that sex sells, so what goes around comes around.

Who's the real racist here? Everyone who criticizes Obama and doesn't intent to support him is a racist, regardless of how horrible they think his ideas are? When he was out bashing people from my Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as bitter, gun-clingers, who believe in God, who do you think he was taking a shot at? Who was the one talking about Hillary Clinton's "claws" and mocked her as "Annie Oakley" when she talked about her support of the Second Amendment (which, of course, was a lie)? Who's the one whose surrogates throw racial bombs at everyone? Are we really to believe that Rev. Wright was correct and that if Bill would have dropped an N-bomb on Hillary that Obama's candidacy would have been for not?

What this really shows is that Obama is extremely insecure and has a terribly, terribly weak glass jaw. One of these days his cockiness is going to make him stick it out there and someone is going to shatter it. Let's hope its before the election and McCain does it, lest it be Iran or some terrorist organization.

-Caomhin

Harry Reid's Selfish Waste of Tax Payer Money

"Which example am I going to cite here," is probably what you're asking yourself, but the one I'm going to highlight here is the debacle of Reid's Liberal special interests taking precedence over the evidence in regards to the California Wildfires. Reid, as most Lefties are, is totally consumed with Global Warming so much so to the point that it goes back and forth with President Bush as reasons for anything that occurs. The stubbing of toe, a headache, etc.

When the fires starting, the Senate Majority Leader (ugh) made his move to say that the wildfires were the result of Global Warming (which is based on junk science as it is). Well, it turns out that's not the case at all. However, he was and still is, calling for Congressional investigations, which will start on Thursday:

On Tuesday the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming announced a hearing:

“A Spark Neglected: Wildfires and Global Warming,” it labeled the proceedings scheduled for Thursday.

“Select committee to examine link between changing climate, frequency and intensity of wildfires,” the description continued.

A committee spokesman said the hearing “was prompted by the wildfires out West and the view of some scientists that the increasing size, frequency and intensity of these fires is affected adversely by global warming.” A panel of scientists will testify.

Pure waste of tax payer funds for multiple reasons. First, notice the nifty little headline, "A Spark Neglected". That's actually pretty funny that they would put a title like that on a Congressional study. Stupid. A select committee (gee I wonder if the people selected will have a bias in favor of Global Warming since they are for sure to be on the payrolls of companies that benefit from products that sell 'carbon-credits' and other ridiculous items) will examine the link between the climate, frequency and intensity of wildfires. The findings are going to be that "the drought conditions in California lead to the wildfires and these were caused by global warming, and manbearpig must be stopped, so we are asking everyone to move to a major city and abandon your cars and stop heating your houses." It's asinine. Maybe if they weren't so tree huggingly weird out in California they'd thin the forests out a bit, maybe put some more firebreaks in the forests/woods. But none the less.

What makes this a giant waste of time for anyone not in the snake oil/global warming business is that the cause has been found. Arson, of course, caused by a boy playing with matches. Think the committee will even once mention that a kid with matches started the fires? Not a chance. Can't blame anyone but who or what they want to be the cause so they can make the money off of it, by promoting fear to a gutless Left Wing base. You'll remember the drunken "I was assaulted...oh wait, I was hammered" Randi Rhodes went so far as to accuse Blackwater of starting the fires out in California to feed her hapless colony of moonbats. These people are morons. Global Warming, President Bush, Blackwater, none of them had anything to do with the fires. The fires were caused by arson and spread rapidly due to over regulation of the forestry system in a far left state where they are still arguing amongst their eco-warriors why wind farms (which kill birds) should be scrapped completely even though it lowers the use of fossil fuels (which they say causes global warming). He's pushing this hearing through despite knowing that the fires were started by arson in order push forward an agenda that will make a person profit for him and so that no one questions his decision to blame global warming the second the fires started. Not only do I question their patriotism, I question their sanity.

-Caomhin

More Attacks on Christians from the Leftists

The Moonbats are a barking, that's for sure. I present two articles I came across today to help illustrate the further assault on Christianity. The first comes from Britain's Daily Mail, where a couple with a lifelong service of foster care have been stripped of their children. What did they do you ask? Hurt the children? Steal money from the government? Commit fraud? Nope, none of the above. Rather, this is their "crime" according to the government:

Earlier this year, Somerset County Council's social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour's new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.

Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

So they refused to teach the 11-year old child they were caring for what gay is and tell them that's it OK. Ridiculous. First of all, the government is not a religious entity, it has no business telling people what is and what is not right morally. They do, however, tell people what is and what is not criminally wrong. Discrimination is a violation of the law of the government, all fair and well. Now, Christianity teaches that it is immoral to be homosexual, but also teaches to be tolerant (which is not the same as accepting) of homosexuals. It is morally wrong to be homosexual. Again, by no means does the issue of morality translate to just homosexuality. Stealing is immoral, yet many Christians engage in stealing. Do you see what I mean there? The act is immoral, but that does not give anyone a right to go out and beat someone senseless for it. I have a few gay friends, I don't discriminate against them at all. They do, however, know that I believe their position is immoral. But we still get along. For the government to override a person's religious belief, by substituting moral (and not criminal) judgement, they are asserting themselves as a religious organization. You can see this happening in the states as well, as Christians are constantly assaulting while the Left panders endlessly to the Muslims. Watch how many things are taken down around Christmas time, then consider whether the Empire State building would be colored in honor of Christmas and not "The Holidays" the way Eid was for the Muslims.

For another example, let's look at this headline story I stumbled upon while searching Yahoo. "Catholic Condom Ban Helping AIDS Spread in Latam: U.N." Here's an example of the crack journalism displayed in this article:

"In Latin America the use of condoms has been demonized, but if they were used in every relation I guarantee the epidemic would be resolved in the region," said Alberto Stella, the UN AIDS Coordinator for Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.

Well....no shit. I could guarantee that if condoms were used in EVERY RELATION there would be no AIDS...and no babies either. What a genius. Somehow though abstinence is promoted as being "wrong" because if abstinence was practiced fully in EVERY RELATION then there would be no AIDS either. So sure, assault the Catholic Church. The Church is encouraging responsibility and to not engage in sex until marriage. The U.N.'s position is to just throw condoms at everyone walking and let them have at it without any sexual education at all, or to stress personal responsibility. Really, which is worse, preaching abstinence or let's say...giving birth control to 11 year olds? Obviously I'm not exactly the best Catholic in the world, but preaching the right thing is better than preaching up the weaknesses of humans in general and telling everyone there should be no responsibility for your actions unless it goes against the government's wishes. When the hell did Communism win the Cold War?

-Caomhin

More Evidence of Sharia Invading our Society

I dare you to read this article and not be upset. Are these people serious? We are a melting pot, not a stratified multicultural nightmare that the Liberals would love it to be. This is bullshit plain an simple. You know what? If you don't want to be a part of a capitalist society, then don't come here. Here's a little snippet from the article above:

Approved Muslim lenders typically set up Sharia compliance boards, with input from scholars and clerics, to guide their policies, and devised variations on acceptable loans.

Under the plan of Guidance Financial, for example, a homebuyer enrolls in a co-ownership program with Guidance. The lender buys the house, then sells it to the homeowner in increments over the next 15 to 30 years.

''Some people would say, 'That sounds like the same thing as a mortgage,''' said Guidance spokesman Hassam Qutub. ''The difference is the risk is shared in the event of a foreclosure. The lender assumes more risk than a conventional bank.''

You know some of the other nice things about Sharia? Beating women, beheadings, subjecting non-Muslims to lives as indentured servants and second-class citizens, forced conversion, and murdering innocents if you can get one crazy ass imam to say its justified. Again, I'll reiterate, I'm not anti-Muslim, but I'm anti-multiculturalism. If any person comes here and refuses to integrate, that's their problem, not the rest of the nation's problem. You come here, you become part of the melting pot, or get rolled over. Every nationality has dealt with this integration and I'd say we did pretty well until this ultra-PC liberal moonbattery took root. Do our leaders even have a single vertebrae left?

-Caomhin

...Meanwhile Dems show how they view Human Freedom and WILL TAX US BACK TO THE STONE AGE...I'm Serial

While not paying so much attention to the situations in Syria, Iran, Burma, and continuing their strange silence on Cuba since President Kennedy (the last great Democrat), they believe that their wallet's bottom line...er, Global Warming is still the issue of the day. Sigh. However, Gore's little idiotic rant this time has really crossed the line. Calling up Ronald Regan's name for his own agenda is beyond pathetic. I do not need to remind you of his hypocrisy in terms of global warming with the whole jet fleet, mansion, and his greatest....scam....ever....carbon credits. In fact he pretty much owns up to it in that article:

"We have to put a price on carbon, and the United States of America has to lead the world to solve the climate crisis," he said.

Yes, you already have a price on carbon....your carbon credit bullshit. For those of you new to this concept, a "carbon credit" is basically your right to use any and all energy and carbon emitting device so long as you invest in the company that takes the carbon back out of the environment....want to guess who owns a sizeable share of all companies who offer this service? Why...it's Al Gore. So of course he wants a price on carbon, because the cost of using it goes to him. What a great scam Al. What a dick.

Democratic morons are drooling over the prospects of this new carbon tax idea, led by Moonbat John Dingell. In yet another instance of "I told you so"....here is possibly the most terrifying article in the last 6 years. Some excerpts from the Washington Post article:

_A 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes.

_A tax on carbon, at $50 a ton, released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.

_Phaseout of the interest tax deduction on home mortgages for homes over 3,000 square feet. Owners would keep most of the deduction for homes at the lower end of the scale, but it would be eliminated entirely for homes of 4,200 feet or more.

So let's see, they are set to let President Bush's tax cuts (the only reason we are not in recession right...and which lead to an increase in government revenues due to re-investment) expire and let the tax-free Internet shopping provision expire. Both are major tax increases...the largest ever. They continually support more programs which will dwarf even these two ginormous mistakes through a back door socialized medicine program in SCHIP as well as their front door proposal in socialized medicine by promoting socialized medicine. I am truly terrified for our nation's future if these big-government, tax and spend, lying defeatists win. Ugh.

-Caomhin