Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"
- from Hussein's of the Union Address

"What's in it for me?"

Sure, there was plenty on which to focus, the ridiculous spending initiatives presented along-side the "fiscal responsibility", the constant blame shifting to "obstructionists" and the prior administration, the admission that the American people did not like his explanation (and failing to see that what we hate is the policy, not the description of the policy); but how the hell has everyone missed the significance of his line, "What's in it for me"?

Has it been so long since a democrat said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"?

Hussein is in office because the masses wanted a change (and change, they got; "How'd that work out for ya?") Free stuff was the promise, and Hussein understands the piper wants his due. Now, as the leader of this nation, he accepts that the way to buy votes for his agenda is to answer the question of the masses: "What's in it for me" - or to not answer it, sometimes.

Am I alone in wanting nothing more from this federal government than strong national defense and a protection of Constitutional freedoms? I accept that the Constitution gives me no "right" to free health care, no "right" to free education, no "right" to free cable television, no "right" to free food or housing; and I fail to see how government (the historically-proven least efficient way of getting anything done) involved in my health care, my bank account, my education, my housing, or my food is a good thing.

Just as Hussein got it wrong in stating his case against the Supreme Court decision (he'd much rather the mainstream media have unobstructed voice for the 30 days prior to federal elections), he got it wrong in assuming we all want free shit from the government.

And, if you are unfortunate enough to make more than $250,000/year, be advised, Hussein hates you, and if you are white and make more than $250,000/year, be ready, his government is coming to bleed you dry!

Someone's gotta pay for all this free stuff.

All I see in the media and among Democrat leaders is the assertion that Hussein will admit to, in his first State of the Union Address tonight, mistakes in message but not in agenda.

When Mr. Obama presents his first State of the Union address on Wednesday evening, aides said he would accept responsibility, though not necessarily blame, for failing to deliver swiftly on some of the changes he promised a year ago. But he will not, aides said, accede to criticism that his priorities are out of step with the nation’s.
As Mr. Obama navigates a crossroads of his presidency, a moment when he signals what lessons he has drawn from his first year in office, the public posture of the White House is that any shortcomings are the result of failing to explain effectively what they were doing — and why. He will acknowledge making mistakes in pursuit of his agenda, aides said, but will not toss the agenda overboard in search of a more popular one.

I disagree. The "shortcomings" have been thus in nature: promises of a "lead from the center" administration and post-partisan government with no ties to extreme left-wing ideology or agenda. Those "shortcoming" contrast the promise with the reality: extremism of leadership and agenda, most polarizing first year of any 1-year President, complete lack of connection with the voters who put him in office, absolute revulsion to the will of the people in the face of obvious disagreement.


Massachusett, in my opinion, was not the result of "not getting the message out"
, it was the result of the message getting out and the voters hating the message.

Tonight, it will be interesting to see if Hussein embraces his radicalism or again lies to the people, in an effort to seem marketable.

"Fool me once...", tonight, we'll see who is, the fool, or the fool who follows him.

The statement "related to several countries in this region and their water sources," Lal told the London paper The Mail. "We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in."
The Mail concluded that the comments were included "purely to put political pressure on world leaders."

- quote from Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, regarding his decision to publish claims known to have no scientific foundation - but to present them as scientific fact

Specifically, he is referring to the assertion in the a UN climate report, that the glaciers of the Himalayas would be gone by 2035.

His quote makes one surprising and inescapable clarification: lying is OK if it moves leaders to action on things he believes are important - regardless of why he believes them.

If the data doesn't support the argument, make a blanket statement and offer no data.

He goes on to paint himself a martyr, a target for environmental skeptics.

Isn't there a term defined as the capacity to do immoral things and justify them to yourself and others?

"I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest," he said. "The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections."
- Barack Hussein Obama - regarding the recent Supreme Court decision to not remove non-news corporations' First Amendment rights to free speech

I can think of MANY things worse:
1. Crushing public debt
2. Endless entitlement programs (leading to point #1.)
3. A public at extreme risk of terrorist attack due to piss-poor foreign policy
4. A complete lack of public confidence in national leadership
5. A currency devalued by retarded fiscal policy
6. A health care system demolished by government take-over
7. A White House that silences any and all voices of opposition through any means necessary.
8. Increasing government restrictions on a financial system almost ruined by government restrictions.
9. Devastating the tattered economy with retarded cap-n-trade laws
10. Ignoring the public and their more-than-thoroughly documented disdain for your polices designed to bring about a new New Deal.



The left hates this ruling purely because it allows voices other than the unbearably biased media to speak to the common man; they love to champion free speech so long as the free speech is "their" free speech.

"The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations on Wednesday said the continued use of the [optical gun] sights with the religious references would send a negative message to the Muslim world."
- press release regarding Trijicon's Biblical references in their serial numbers on gun sites

Seriously? No, I mean, seriously?

The guns are killing Muslims, and the Biblical references send a negative message?

I am still, whole-heartedly, a believer that we should be sending the message that every Muslim killed will be dismembered and buried in pig blood. These cowards hide behind women and children, they hide in mosques and schools and hospitals, they kill innocents, and I am to be concerned they might be upset by optical sites with Biblical references?

Rather than jump in the fray and give my "unique" and informed summary of why Coakley lost (bitch) and why Brown won (anti-Obama), I'd like to address a different - though tangential - topic: why I prefer colored briefs to white briefs or boxers.


First, no boxers for me.
I am a freedom-loving individual, understanding that my freedoms cannot, by definition, infringe upon the freedoms of others - but believing that few other limitations apply. The seemingly obvious "too much freedom" doesn't apply here, as it implies a need for some restraint or controls on freedom. To those who prefer boxers: have at it. For those fans of commando: rock on, it is your right. For me, it begins and ends with comfort. In the immortal words of Cosmo Kramer, "My boys need a house."

As for why "tighty whitey" ain't my thing, the reality of a fast-paced man's life is that I simply do not have time to sit and ponder throughout the day; I'm constantly moving and shaking (pun intended) and sometimes small annoyances must be accepted. And, as a married man with a full-time maid, I seldom wash my own clothes, and women (who do sit and ponder the days away) just don't understand.

So, till the pace of life slows (and till I go full Brazilian) it will be colored briefs for me. And, as I learned so very long ago, in my beloved Corps, if you turn them inside out, they are clean!