Perhaps the quintessential example illustrating my frustration is the recent “quotes” from the soon-to-be-released biography on Apple’s Steve Jobs.  Revered by virtually all for his contributions to technology and his leadership to one of America’s most iconic corporations…yes Apple is a CORPORATION!  Here are some of the excerpts attributed to Jobs;

“You’re headed for a one-term presidency,” Jobs told Obama in a meeting last year where he asserted that the White House needed to be more friendly toward business.”

“regulations and unnecessary costs” put the United States at a competitive disadvantage with China, where companies can build factories more cheaply.”

“the education system was “crippled by union work rules”

“Jobs also suggested that Obama meet with several other CEOs who could talk about the needs of innovative firms, but in a characteristic huff, Jobs declared his intention to skip the event when the White House added additional names to the list. Jobs also objected to the menu of that meeting, telling a venture capitalist that shrimp, cod and lentil salad was “far too fancy” and objecting to a chocolate truffle dessert. The White House overruled him, according to the book, citing the president’s fondness for cream pie.”

Jobs refused to attend the meeting, but reportedly talked with Obama over the phone.  Jobs’ comments could just as easily be heard from the mouths of Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or any of the non-RINO Republican candidates.  The comments mirror the frustration held by many free market capitalists as they look at this White House and liberalism in general.  The article ends with a statement that exasperates me…

“Jobs talked with Obama on the phone several times after that, according to Isaacson, and later offered to help with the creation of political ads for Obama’s 2012 campaign.”

How does an industrialist, capitalist, entrepreneur, inventor offer to help perhaps the most anti-industrialist, anti-capitalist, most anti-entrepreneurial president ever?  What is the thought process of such a brilliant mind to support someone with whom he seems to share so little in common regarding the direction America is being pushed? 

Count me as one perplexed conservative.

Savvy politicians have embraced the new media to their advantage and sites like FaceBook, Twitter, and YouTube have helped them get their message out and most importantly for professional, career politicians they can help them raise money. Former Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson has kept us entertained with his frequent tweets about the current occupant of the White House.

The common thread, however, is that we are all private citizens who do this of our own accord and with out own resources (time and money). It is established fact that “main-stream” media outlets (network television and most newspapers and magazines) are left-leaning or far left. You would think that with this media cabal at his beck and call President Obama wouldn’t need his own network. Perhaps former media darling Hilary Clinton provided enough evidence to Obama about how fickle and vindictive the main-stream media can be. Media elitists seem to love nothing more than building someone up and them tearing them back down.

Obama was commonly attributed to have a robust Internet presence during his campaign and decided to break a commitment to accept public campaign financing in lieu of private donations. Breaking his word rewarded him with a financial bonanza as he dominated the finances of John McCain. The Obama Administration has continued their use of new media including a controversial web site that sought to have citizens report other citizens who were thought to be spreading “untruthful” e-mails about White House policies. This hit a little too close to “Big Brother” for many and was toned down, but not removed.

It seems like the honeymoon may be over as the main-stream media has actually asked two or three tough questions of the White House in the past six months. The true evidence of the tarnish was a recent article by ABC News’ Devin Dwyer which ran with the headline;

Obama’s Media Machine: State Run Media 2.0?

I think that Rush Limbaugh coined the “state run media” phrase, but I am sure that he enjoyed its use by ABC News. The text from the first paragraph explicitly states why there are long faces at main-stream media outlets, “President Obama’s White House media operation is demonstrating an unprecedented ability to broadcast its message through social media and the Internet, at times doing an end-run around the traditional press.” [Emphasis added] Ordinarily I would find this squabble humorous, but it comes to mind that my tax dollars are paying for all of these “broadcasts.” So what propaganda are we paying for? Some highlights from the White House Press Office include:

• It produces a website, blog
• It has a YouTube channel
• It maintains a Flickr photo stream
• It has a Facebook profile
• It has Twitter profiles
• It also produces a mix of daily video programming
• Live video coverage of the president’s appearances
• Produces “news-like” shows that highlight his accomplishments
• A newly launched online programming called “Advise the Adviser: Your Direct Line to the White House.” This site encourages viewers to offer “advice, opinions and feedback on important issues” and promises a response from a senior administration official in return.
• Also available on the BO Network is “Open for Questions,” a periodic series of live moderated video chats with officials.
• If that is not to your liking then there is “West Wing Week,” which seems to be an “E Television” styled show featuring our fearless leader.

So what does the main-stream media and academia think of State Run Media 2.0?

“The administration has narrowed access by the mainstream media to an unprecedented extent,” said ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton, who has covered seven administrations. “Access here has shriveled.”

“But some say the current dynamic is different, and dangerous.”

“They’re opening the door to kicking the press out of historic events, and opening the door to having a very filtered format for which they give the American public information that doesn’t have any criticism allowed,” said University of Minnesota journalism professor and political communication analyst Heather LaMarre.”

“They want to ask the questions themselves, post questions on the White House blog, tweet the president or Robert Gibbs directly. They don’t think, ‘Oh my gosh, this is bypassing an important filter of information.’ They don’t care about the filter.”

And the “filters” (main-stream media) are not happy. There are many of us who prefer the new-media because of the filters used by the main-stream, left-leaning media outlets. We, perhaps, don’t want Katie Couric or William Cronkite deciding what we should hear. The old-media don’t mind that there are filters as long as they are the filters. In some ways what Obama is doing is a good thing (I hesitated to see if I would be struck by lightening) by getting his message out, but what if Bush, Reagan, or Newt Gingrich had tried the same thing? The next Republican in the White House will use the same methods to communicate further diminishing the stranglehold (“filter”) of the old-media. It will be interesting to see if Obama attacks ABC as he done repeatedly to Fox News and talk radio.

My last comment is, however, a reminder that our tax dollars are paying for this communication. Incumbents always seem to have an advantage over challengers in that they are in office and visible. What is troubling is how these networks will be used solely to create a persona, unchallenged by opposition that can be used to further Obama’s electoral success in 2012. That is the troubling part for me. Isn’t “State Run Media 2.0” just a slicker version of third world dictators hanging posters of themselves all over town?

The first and perhaps the most hated is former Republican Veep candidate, Sarah Palin.  Sean Hannity calls it “Palin Derangement Syndrome.”  The left was probably very disappointed that they did not get to choose the Republican VP candidate like they chose John McCain and took an instant dislike to her.  From the price of her campaign wardrobe to who is the mother of her child to what she reads and most recently what she writes on her hand.

Next in line is the Tea Party movement.  What started as a grassroots protest about excessive taxation, a growing federal government, and lack of representation has grown into a political force.  This waking giant has been disparaged and characterized as “tea baggers” (a shameful  euphemism for a sexual act), red necks, extremists, illiterates, and racists.  I attended a local event and saw none of those things.  The media is so desperate for things to criticize that its main complaint was that organizers charged for folks to attend its recent convention.

Coming in at number three is Vice-President Dick Cheney.  There is something about Cheney that infuriates the left.  Maybe it is his gravitas.  He seems to be cunning, evil, hawkish, on the take, and near death gun-totin Dr. No.  I remember a brief love affair that the lame stream media had with Cheney when George W. picked him as his running mate.  The choice was lauded providing experience to the Bush administration.  That did not last long as Cheney was soon portrayed as a Dr. No character leading Bush toward global war.  It was funny to watch Obama send out Biden to counter Cheney this weekend.  I would love to see these two guy debate…then wrestle.

Lastly is the MajaRushie (I know that is four).  What can I say about Rush that he hasn’t said himself.  Rush Limbaugh is the most successful radio host of all time and “almost always right.”  Why does Rush taunt liberals…because he can.  The mere mention of his name in liberal circles is like opening a can of catnip in Janeane Garofalo’s apartment – chaos.  I love listening to Rush set up the left.  Before he makes a “controversial” statement, he’ll tell us how the drive by media will portray it, he’ll make the statement, then he’ll tell us again how the media will play the clip.  I have lost count of how many times I have heard him do that and witnessed his predictions come true.  MegaDittos.

As I have found latey, journalists in the United Kingdom seem to have the scoop on the Yankee reporters.  This passage from the UK Telegraph story brought a smile;

“After Monday’s Newsnight item on the Climategate scandal it is evident that the leaked e-mails allegedly from the University of East Anglia’s manmade global warming propaganda unit are threatening to bring down more than just the IPCC/Al Gore axis. The much-derided mainstream media are waking up to the fact that their own credibility and hence commercial viability are imminently threatened by their clinging to the climate change superstition.”

In all fairness to the colonists, the Washington Times also had a story with this excerpt;

“It was announced Thursday afternoon that computer hackers had obtained 160 megabytes of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England. Those e-mails involved communication among many scientific researchers and policy advocates with similar ideological positions all across the world. Those purported authorities were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global-warming claims.”

You can expect natural climate change deniers to circle the wagons to explain away their transgressions.  If you are unfamiliar with the new name for man-made global warming alarmists, Natural Climate Change Deniers, that is because I just thought it up.  Some of the funniest parts of this scandal is the reaction of Gore’s buddies where one even claims that nasty politics is behind the release of the e-mails.  Never mind that they should have been made available under the Freedom of Information Act (scientists have been trying to get the data and e-mails for years) these scammers have been hiding their work from real scientific peer review.

In perhaps the quintesential hypocritical move, the New York Times refused to print any of the e-mails.  To their credit, they did publish the story on their front page rather than burying it like they usually do.  This statement feigning their integrity should have you in stitches:

“The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”

This from the magazine that exposed a secret data mining program designed to catch terrorists, or when they published secret CIA documents, or their most cherished moment when they printed the Classified Pentagon Papers.  Can there be any doubt that the NYT has an agenda?

There is hope that this latest story will shed light on the man-made global warming hoaxers and Al Gore will take his rightful place beside Jimmy Carter in the land of irrelevance.

UPDATE:  One of the high kings of the man-made global warming cabal addressed the hacked document scandal. It should be noted that while the materials included e-mail messages, the documents also included studies and data that the cabal would not make available for scientific review. It seems as if you had to almost pledge to be in their camp to view any data.

George Monbiot, one of the cabal’s leading propagandists discussed the documents. As seems to always be the case, these stories break in other countries and never seem to make it to our lame stream media. Andrew Bolt, a writer from Australia, posted what seems to be a frank admission by one of the Gore Fever Planet Cabal;

“It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them. Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request. Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.”

Let us not get our hopes up as this story will be strenuously suppressed by American media. Hopefully the hackers, like Andrew Breitbart with ACORN, have plans to dole out the dirt over time thus forcing the media to report the story. Glenn Beck weighed in on the story:

NFL players, Bart Scott (NY Jets) and Mathias Kiwanuka (NY Giants), neither of whom play for the Rams, offered that they were too principled to work for Limbaugh.  No response from Rush on their comments, but I suspect he is not too concerned that these players would not play for him.  Mr. Limbaugh is a football fan, who loves the Pittsburgh Steelers, would probably be interested in fielding a winning team and as such would not be interested in either player.  

I am still waiting for the press to ask these players whether race has anything to do their comments.  The issue has also brought out the heavy artillery in the race wars.  By heavy artillery I am sarcastically referring to Rev-Squared (Rev. Al and Rev. Jesse) who are emploring the NFL to block the potential sale.  It is a little suspicious that two black “leaders” who have made their careers on “advocating” racial issues.  Sharpton may be best known for his role in accusations by a black girl first against a local, white prosecutor and when that did not stick, accused the local, white police.  The girl’s accusations were proven to be a hoax.  Both have been waiting 22 years for an apology.  If you want to read some about the other Rev. check out this story.

Coming to Rush’s defense was sportswriter Stephen A. Smith, “Absolutely. If he has the money, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it. And those black ball players that are saying that, I’m here on national television telling you they are lying through their stinking teeth. They’re walking hypocrites…What I’m saying is oh, you’re going to pass up money because oh, my god, I’m offended by Rush Limbaugh being the owner? Who are you fooling? Liars. I wish they would say it publicly. Show me who it was.” 

Rush Limbaugh addressed some of the issues regarding the comments made about the sale.  I listened to most of his show today and found his use of the word “slander” on more than one occasion a little telling.  It seems that maybe the media cannot keep making up stuff about him without him responding. 

This could get real interesting…hopefully.

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

The part Mr. Alinsky failed to include in the rule is “destroy it.”  As I was thinking about examples of the use of this rule the most successful case was during the Clinton Administration.  I know that is going back a few years, but unfortunately for the target, the rule was very successfully used.

Pick the target.

The story begins in the White House travel office.  The folks who work in the Travel Office make travel arrangements for the White House Press Corps and the media outlets are charged for the travel costs. 

Freeze it.

Shortly after Bill Clinton took office, seven employees of the Travel Office were fired including the director, Billy Dale, who had served in this office since the Kennedy administration (that is seven presidents plus a short time under Clinton – I know that sounds like a Monica Lewinsky joke). 

Personalize it.

The Clinton’s (Hilary was also implicated in the scandal) accused the staff of corruption and embezzlement.  The FBI and the justice department investigated the employees.  It actually turned out that the White House got background material on Mr. Dale from the FBI before it took action against him.  Is it really legal to look at FBI files of common folks; what happens if they turn up missing (Filegate)?

Polarize it.

Mr. Dale and his six associates were charged with various crimes.  I do not remember whether they were shown on TV handcuffed and led from their homes.  That would be a nice touch, but I do not think the entire main stream news media was quite completely eating out of the Democrats hands then. 

So why would the Clinton’s do this?  The theory that is supported by some facts is that the Clinton’s wanted to give the job to friends, which they did.  Rather than try to justify firing a man who had served seven other presidents, it was easier to use Rule 13 and destroy him…allegedly.  As a note, all of the seven accused in the corruption scandal were found NOT GULTY.

Anlther example of the Clinton’s use of Rule 13 was with Linda Tripp during the Lewinsky scandal.  Ms. Tripp had the misfortune of being the confidant of Ms. Lewinsky, taped some of their phone conversations, and released them.  She was not “picked” in true Alinsky fashion, but her treatment fit all of the other parts of the rule. 

If you fast-forward to last year as Barack Hussein Obama was campaigning for president, he came across Joe Wurzelbacher (AKA Joe the Plumber) during a walk through Joe’s neighborhood.  Joe had the nerve to ask a question about small businesses and Obama, without the support of TOTUS, made the famous “spread the wealth around” comment.  Rather than back off the comment, the Obama team with the help of supporters began a campaign to destroy Joe the Plumber.  I do not remember seeing any evidence of collusion, it just seemed like the left knew what to do. 

The good news is that this rule does not always work anymore.  In this case Mr. Wurzelbacher stood his ground and the new media (talk radio, Fox News, Internet, etc.) has some strength and can get out the real story.  Rather than Joe ending up like Linda Tripp or Billy Dale, he is actually in demand as a speaker.  That is the American way!

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

In a story that is still unfolding, President Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin.  While it is true that the Inspector General serves at the pleasure of the president, rules require at least a 30-day notice and that the firing be reported to Congress.  Unfortunately, President Obama did not follow that statute even though he voted for it while a Senator.  The case is more complicated because IG Walpin was investigating a friend of President Obama.

The Administration claimed that it fired Walpin because he was confused at meetings alleging incompetence.  Unfortunately, Mr. Walpin is not going away and has filed a lawsuit over his firing.  In addition to Mr. Walpin standing his ground, others have come forward to support him and dispute the White House’s claims. 

This is starting to look like the Clinton scandals on steroids.

I think one of the funniest uses of Rule 13 is when the left try to use it against El Rushbo.  As demonstrated, the rule does not work so well when you stand your ground and fight back.  It also helps that Rush Limbaugh has tens of millions of listeners each week.  It does not seem like a month goes by without some attempt from the left, the mainstream media, or even the White House (Yes I know that they are all the same thing) going after Rush. 

It is great fun watching Mr. Limbaugh toy with the left.  He will actually make a comment then explain how the left will use his statement to try to stir things up.  Often within a day or so, the mainstream media will be reporting about the comment out of the context with which it was stated.  It is obvious that they either do not listen to his show, yet are “given” excerpts to report…often getting it wrong.  It is actually quite sad that “reporters” really do not investigate before reporting.  We all need to start referring to them as their actions deserve – News Readers.

Let’s not forget Sarah Palin.  She is not backing down and hopefully will come out of Alaska wearing fightin’ lipstick. 

As we continue to shed light on the tactics of the radicals, they will become less effective.  Also as I stated in my review of Rules For Radicals, we can use the tactics too!

“To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand”

Synonyms: muddle, perplex, cloud

President Obama often starts his remarks with the statement “I want to be very clear” then obfuscates the topic.  (this is a semi-quote from Rush Limbaugh.  Since I was driving I have to rely on my memory as to the exact phrasing.)

Can you give me an example?

Example 1: The biggest example was one that I noticed during his campaign when he pledged to CREATE three million jobs.  Sometime around his election, he obfuscated his position and now promises to create or “save” three million jobs.  Creating jobs is quantifiable, saving jobs is not.  There is no way to prove or disprove that kind of claim. 

Example 2:  President Obama made this statement recently; “I want to be very clear: I will not sign on to any health plan that adds to our deficits over the next decade.”  Many people take heart in his statement, but I am not convinced and question his verbiage since he is the smartest president ever. 

• What does “sign on to” mean?  The President signs legislation and does not “sign on” as he stated.
• What does “health plan” mean?  The issue is health care and health insurance.  I am not comfortable with the new term of “health plan” as congress will not pass a “health plan.”  The legislation will create the agency that will then create the plan.  He can then be incredulous when the plan is created.  He will then send Veep Joe out to admit that they misjudged the health care issue.
• How and who will determine what “adds to our deficits” means?  The White House already claim that the as yet unwritten legislation will not add to deficits.  Unfortunately every other organization, including the Congressional Budget Office, disagrees with that claim and report that significant increases in the deficit will occur.  Someone has to be wrong.  I believe the accountants more than the politicians.
• Why say “over the next decade?”  Details are that this will not really take effect until 2013 (coincidentally after the next presidential election).  Why not commit that this will NEVER add to our deficit.  I still would not believe it.  My guess is that once passed most of the Sheeple will forget yet another of his broken promises and we know that the main stream media will not remind folks.

Example 3:  President Obama jumped into the fray regarding the arrest of a Harvard professor who claimed that he was arrested because he was black.  Obama responded to a question; “I don’t know all of the facts…I don’t know not having been there, and not seeing all of the facts, what role race played in that…the Cambridge Police acted stupidly…there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.  That’s just a fact.“  He did everything but say that police officer had a “typical white” reaction.

One has to wonder why the de facto leader of the free world would claim that a local police department acted “stupidly” when he qualified his statement twice by saying that he did not know all of the facts.  As the facts started coming out he realized that he stepped in it and maybe his buddy Skip Gates was at fault.  So how does our president “clean his shoes?”  Never one to shy away from the camera, he made an appearance at the daily press conference.

Did he admit that he made a mistake?  No he obfuscated by saying “I wanted to address you guys directly, because over the last day and a half, obviously, there’s been all sorts of controversy around the incident that happened in Cambridge with Professor Gates and the police department there.”  The Washington Post actually had as their headline: Obama Moves to Ratchet Down Tensions in Gates Arrest Controversy. 

The President of the United States alluded that the arrest of his friend may have been racially motivated, stirred up historical incidents between blacks and police and called policemen stupid.  He took the opportunity to RATCHET UP tensions and then acts as if he is the peacemaker. 

Give me a break.

How is God different than Barack Obama…Obama gets better press coverage

How is God different than Barack Obama…God does not think he is Obama

How is God different than Barack Obama…Liberals love Obama

How is God different than Barack Obama…God asks for only 10% of your money

How is God different than Barack Obama…God’s plan to save us is actually written down for people to read.

Rush Limbaugh used many of these jokes on a recent segment of his radio show.  The first joke was a little controversial in that there are a number of American citizens pursuing Obama through our courts to force him to produce a birth certificate.   An Obama political action committee has reportedly paid over a million dollars to a law firm fighting these lawsuits. 

In South Park Conservatives, Brian C. Anderson explores the use of humor to combat liberal mainstream media (redundant terminology) bias.  The basis of the South Park Conservative label is the Comedy Central show; South Park.  Creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker hate conservatives, but really hate liberals.  They admit to being “more right-wing than most people in Hollywood” partly because Hollywood types are so out there on the Left.

“People in the entertainment industry are by and large whore-chasing, drug-addicted *&%$ups, but they still believe they’re better than the guy in Wyoming who really loves his wife and takes care of his kids and is a good, outstanding, wholesome person.  Hollywood views regular people as children, and they think they’re the smart ones who need to tell the idiots out there how to be…and that’s why South Park was a big hit up front, because it doesn’t treat the viewer like a ____ing retard.” 

South Park, now in its 13th season, regularly blasts mainstream, politically correct ideologies in a not so reverent manner.  The show is not for kids or for those not used to coarse language.  A favorite of mine is when they poke fun at former VP Al Gore.  Mr. Gore, it seems, is speaking out about a mythical creature and is making appearances to garner support against the Manbearpig.  I take it as a dig at his “the planet has a fever” shtick that won him a Nobel Peace Prize.  You can watch a clip here.

In “The Revolt against Liberal Media Bias,” Anderson explores the rapid growth of alternative media (talk shows, Fox News, blogs, etc.) as a balance to mainstream media liberal slant.  The success of many of these outlets is due to their use of humor to expose media bias.  The author gives these folks the name “Anti-Liberals.”  Rush Limbaugh used the Obama jokes to poke fun at our President’s apparent view of himself.  Some in the MSM also have drunk the Kool-Aid and believe that he is “like God.” 

South Park Conservatives also theorizes why liberal talk radio does not sell.  In an appearance on the Phil Donahue show, former New York governor Mario Cuomo, who had hosted his own failed talk show, explained that Conservatives write their messages with crayons while we use fine-point quills.  It always amazes me how these elitist snobs expect the unwashed masses to listen and accept their Liberal views.  It is no wonder that South Park Conservatives flock to alternative sources; places where the establishment does not tell us how dumb we are. 

Al Gore as Manbearpig.

The book explores other instances of media bias and how alternative media acts like a watchdog.  Rathergate is a good example of alternative media “policing” the MSM.  What may be the most interesting chapter is about the rise of conservatism on college campuses.  This is also the most funny to me as I was born in the 1960s, but was too young to be part of the counter-culture of that decade.  The “establishment” at college campuses today is the very same hippies that rebelled against the establishment.  These hippies  became what they protested.  The Conservative college students are now the protestors.

The book is a worthwhile read and you will get many websites to explore.  One of my favorite websites that I read daily, other than Drudge, is NewsBusters.  They have a humorous news feature called NewsBusted that is updated every Tuesday and Friday (they have not used any of my story ideas…yet).  

Let’s continue to support alternative media, especially this blog.  Tell your friends.

“Bitterly abusive feeling or expression, language expressing bitterness and hatred.”

Synonyms:  insult, revilement, invective, vilification, or abuse

Quotable:

“Abuse a man unjustly, and you will make friends for him..”

                                                                                   Edgar Watson Howe

Can you use it in a sentence?

The frequent vitriol displayed by many liberals must indicate a basic insecurity in their beliefs, intelligence, policies, and positions.

Can you give me an example?

Example 1:  The most recent example was “comedian” Wanda Sykes’ jokes calling Rush Limbaugh the “20th hijacker,” treasonous, and finally ending by wishing that his kidneys fail.  Mr. Limbaugh is used to the abuse and I did not hear his response to the attacks, but the most interesting part may have been the fact that the President of the United States, you know arguably the most powerful man on Earth, was laughing.  Laughing at the prospect of Rush Limbaugh’s kidneys failing.  That is CLASS.

Example 2:  The song Who Let The Dogs Out comes to mind when you look at the attacks on Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean.  I believe that Miss Prejean, a student at a Christian college, was set up with a controversial question about gay “marriage.”  When she answered that marriage is between a man and a woman she lost the contest and the attacks started.  Vicious nasty attacks that seemed too quick and vitriolic not to be orchestrated.

Example 3:  The MSM, Hollywood elitists, and democrat apologists went on a rampage against the grass roots efforts during the nation-wide tea parties.  The excessive taxation protests were held throughout April with the majority attended on April 15, 2009.  These  kind of attacks are expected from the likes of democrat hacks like James Carville, Paul Begala, Keith Olberman, and Chris Matthews.

However, I was slightly surprised when Anderson Cooper joined the mob with “teabagging” comments.  Maybe the recent ratings showing that the bloviating Olberman coundown is rapidly catching Cooper.  Maybe 360 is feeling a little pressure.  The most egregious comments came from Janeane Garofalo who noted that all of the estimated one million attendees were racists, rednecks who teabag (apparently a gay sexual act).  She also treated viewers to a neurology lecture on the brain structure of conservatives.  I will no longer watch “24″ until they kill off her character who happens to be as annoying as Garofalo.

Example 4:  Illinois Senator Dick Durbin’s comments about our troops’ behavior in Iraq and treatment of prisoners:

“If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime–Pol Pot or others–that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”

Comparing the mistreatment of prisoners (playing loud music, sleep deprivation and nude pyramids) to the murderous practices of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot (Cambodian despot responsible for an estimated 1.7 million deaths) was vitriolic.  Unfortunately politicians passed some type of legislation preventing them from being held accountable for their statements leading to…

Example 5:  Representative John Murtha’s comments in response to an incedent in Haditha, Iraq where marines were attacked, a comrade killed, and proceeded to return fire and storm the house killing the inhabitants.  Before all of the reports of the incident were in and before any investigations, Rep. Murtha convicted the marines with his comments:

“There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood”

Example 6:  This is the first in the Supreme Court series.  After Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court, leftist and USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux hoped that Thomas’ wife “would feed him lots of eggs, so he would die from a heart attack.”  This is a leftist hoping for the death of a Supreme Court Justice, a black Supreme Court Justice.  It is interesting that she hoped that he suffered the fate that plagues many black men, heart attacks. 

Example 7:  Second and final in the Supreme Court series goes back a few years to 1987 and the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.  Judge Bork was widely considered one of the best persons for the job.  The left and democrats engaged in a scorched earth policy attacking Judge Bork culminating in his nomination being rejected by the Senate.  The personal attacks were, well vitriolic.

I could go on and on and on and I did not even include any of the hundreds of examples available from Countdown With Keith Olberman.  I generally try to keep my posts shorter than that.

I have to admit, that I paid close attention to gas prices and would plan my errands around where the cheaper gas was.  I did not make special trip, but would top off my tank if I passed a station with lower priced gas. 

Do you know someone who clips grocery coupons yet always buys name brand products?  I shop at Costco and they often have coupons.  It is a crazy time to shop at Costco when their coupons start.  I have noticed, however, that even with their coupons the Kirkland products are usually cheaper and just as good.  Sometimes that takes a little math, but that is what I find.  I often can get twice as many Kirkland ibuprofen for less money than Advil. 

As I was driving this afternoon, I was struck by a news story.  In his first cabinet meeting, President Barack Obama is demanding that his cabinet slash spending by $100 million.  That is a lot of money, but as I thought about the amounts bandied about these days that is not all that much.  That would amount to 30 cents per American or “penny wise.”  You must remember that in addition to the stimulus bill, this administration has proposed a $3.6 trillion budget.   By the way, that $100 million savings will be spread over several years while the $3.6 TRILLION budget is for one year.

I could not get past the fact that I was thinking that 100 million dollars seemed like a pittance (or penny).  We are talking about $100,000,000.00.  It looks much larger when you write it out that way.  The news media was all aghast at how much money Obama was forcing his cabinet to save.  They spoke breathlessly about the tough cuts Obama was seeking.  Some of the savings was going to be realized through buying paper in bulk, sharing printers and reducing the number of offices.

My immediate question was “Why haven’t we been doing this all along?”  I thought we had a General Services Administration that was supposed to do combine purchasing.  It is interesting that with all of the budget problems that we have been having; they just now figured out that we could save money by buying in bulk.  These folks have never been to Sam’s Club.  Maybe, hold on to your hats, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS TOO BIG! 

I have another suggestion to the Obamas for a way to save some taxpayer money.  They can halt the planned weekly cocktail parties or “social events.” 

“It’s not so much a cocktail party necessarily,” Katie McCormick Lelyveld, press secretary to first lady Michelle Obama, told FOXNews.com. “It’s a gathering that takes on the shape of the week’s agenda. The driving force is to reserve time Wednesday evenings to have at hand to use for whatever is at the top of the list of priorities that week.”

A recent menu featured:

“Celery Soup, Wild Mushroom Crisps, Steelhead Salmon with Citrus sauce, Crispy Spinach, Toasted Saffron Couscous Pearls, Baby Iceberg lettuce with Maytag Bleu Cheese and Yogurt ranch dressing and for dessert, Milk Chocolate velvet cake” – all served on gold-rimmed china.”

This seemed like being penny wise to me while the Administration is clearly being dollar foolish with the budget.  Rush Limbaugh said something that hit home about the budget numbers.  It is sad, but 100 million sounds bigger than 3.6 trillion to most folks.  His take was to refer to 4 billion as 4,000 million. 

When you contrast a $100 million dollar savings over a few years to a 3,600,000 million dollar ANNUAL budget proposal, Obama is being penny wise and dollar foolish…

…with our money.