• Slideshow Image 1
  • Slideshow Image 2
  • Slideshow Image 3
  • Slideshow Image 4
  • Slideshow Image 5
  • Slideshow Image 6
sex hikayeleri rokettube

Tag Archive for ‘Age of Obama’

SCOTUS Validates The Largest Tax Increase in American History – AKA – Obamacare

Stunning verdict from the Supreme Court today, now the repeal of this ginormous tax increase will be decided in November. I was hoping we didn’t have to solely depend upon the November election to get this done but that is how the cookie crumbled today.

There have been a variety of responses to this verdict. Below the cut are a sampling of the responses I’ve encountered across the web:



Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu Schools Obama During White House Meeting

From Al Jazeera, no less:

It’s tough being da Prez some days. No longer can you skip over issues with the excuse that it is above my pay grade.


SEIU Tantrum Tour LowLights

As the Tantrum Tour rolls through the nation, the more I am convinced we are witnessing  a long overdue ‘Intervention’ episode for public sector union members.

As with any intervention, there are always moments when the addict lashes out – in this case union goons slaps have escalated to pushes, shoving.



America’s Enduring Strength

I’m going there: Sarah Palin projects a more presidential vibe in this video than the one currently occupying the White House and speaking in Arizona.

Sarah Palin: “America’s Enduring Strength” from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

Tonight’s memorial had a campaign feel to it, must have been the free tshirt distributed to memorial attendees. It looks as though I wasn’t the only one who got that campaign tingle from the memorial:





Adding to this disaster is a ‘strange lack of urgency‘ by the White House in issuing orders to federal department and agencies directing them to take immediate action to stop the leaks.

Perhaps this administration is looking for cover in the wikileaks? Shellacked by the recent elections with no coherent plan of victory for either Iraq or Afghanistan, why not blame a loss and hasty retreat of our forces on the devastating effects of the leaked documents.

All is not lost, good news can be found in this mess. That woman, Hilary Clinton, was totally broadsided by the leaked documents.


Did you enjoy this post? Please consider sharing it.

My Two Cents on Net Neutrality

“When institutions (China) start screwing around with routers preferences fire walls and censorship, really bad stuff starts happening; often its insidious. ” ~ Google CEO Eric Schmidt circa 2008

According to a May 2010 Pew study, 79% of American adults use the internet. Over 90% of users use the internet to send or read email; 80% of users use a search engine to find information. It is now second nature to most American’s to turn to the internet to ‘google’ information, post or view videos on YouTube, wirelessly upload photos from smartphones to Flickr or post status updates on numerous social media platforms. Not forgetting, the rise of the blogosphere the past decade.

Users race to purchase the latest and greatest electronics to facilitate these activities. These consumers are just as quick to jump to providers that offer a better service at a lower price. I’m reminded of AOL offering a flat fee for unlimited dial up internet access back in the mid nineties.  How long did it take other internet providers to offer the same?

Now it is being proposed that government oversight is needed in the form of Net Neutrality?

For those just joining the conversation, Net Neutrality broadly defined means that internet users have the right to unfettered access to the internet. ISP’s shall not be allowed to monkey with users abilty to access content. Another view of net neutrality sees this simply as a power grab by a government. As Eric Schmidt stated, when institutions start screwing with the net..bad stuff happens.

The principle of Net Neutrality makes me squeemish and every time this subject comes up in conversation, I’m always reminded of the short story ‘Harrison Bergeron‘. Right now in real life, if Comcast interrupts internet service one more time on the weekend, I’m switching to Verizon. Working withing the constraints of  ’Net Neutrality’ both ISP’s would be required to provide equally crappy internet service. There would be no reason for either company to pursue innovative pricing or technology to maintain their customer base. A competitive market environment would be a better check on the ISP’s and continue to be an incentive for ISP’s to produce a better product for internet users.

We know from experience (obamacare, etc) that any type of government involvement inserts additional layers of complexity between the user and product. More layers of bureacracy equals less control consumers have over a product they have freely purchased. The more control in the hands of consumers results in robust internet access for all. As of now, an open internet is already in the hands of consumers.

Although the FCC produced non binding principles on net neutrality, Google and Verizon have proceeded with proposing a framework for net neutrality legislation. Their proposal would allow users “to choose any lawful content, services or applications they want; in other words, they can choose whatever Internet service they want, go to whatever legal Web sites they want, and use whatever software or applications they want.” These are services internet users already have access to right here, right now. the proposal includes micromanagement tools such as ISP content management transparency and limiting the prioritizing of internet traffic. Bandwidth can always be increased, why place limits on it? Overall, I don’t see anything in this proposal that would incentivize ISP’s to provide better technology or protect consumers. What I need to to see is evidence based data, not speculative opinion on this issue.  Both Google and Verizon have failed to produce any convincing data to back up their proposal. Would it not be better to consider any alleged act of abuse by an ISP on a case-by-case basis then enact over reaching legislation based on speculation?

In fairness, this is just a proposal that politicians can either use or ignore. The great unknown stems from what regulations will be promoted by legislators. In the end, it will come down to who the public trusts more with keeping the internet ‘open’ – an ISP invested in internet technology or the US Congress.

Living in Philadelphia, I’ve witnessed first hand the slow delivery of technology due directly to city government and union interference. Philadelphia county was the last county to gain access to cable networks, a decade behind the rest of the state. It was only last year that Verizon inked a deal with city council to expand FiOS internet access into Philadelphia.  I’ve been down the road Verizon, Google and Net Neutrality supporters would like to take this nation. I know exactly where it ends and I know it is not a place we want to go.

That’s my two cents, what are your thoughts on this subject?


This Doesn’t Happen Often – I Agree with AllahPundit

Yesterday, Proposition 8 which passed with easily in California in 2008 was struck down by a Federal judge. Overturning Prop 8 over the majority opinion of the citizens of California is not the way to get buy-in for your cause and sets a chilling future for all citizen based ballot propositions .  While I have no issue with gays wanting to enter a civil union, getting to that point has just been made even more difficult by this Federal judge. When the citizens of this country are ready to accept unions between two consenting gays then it will be reflected in the ballot box. I don’t care what your orientation, you must respect that fact.

Allah and I agree..remarkably on this subject:

I think they’ve made a needless mistake in pushing this in the courts instead of doing it legislatively state-by-state. The optics are uniquely bad — a federal judge imperiously tossing out a public referendum enacted by citizens of one of the bluest states in America on the shoulders of a multi-racial coalition. If the goal of gay-rights activists is to make same-sex marriage palatable to the public, then embittering opponents by torpedoing a hard-fought democratic victory seems like … an odd way to go about it.


Why is the Philadelphia Inquirer Ignoring A Story of the Year?

Yesterday, a former prosecutor for the Department of Justice testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights pursuant to the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation dismissal. The allegations put forth by J. Christian Adams point to the case being dismissed due to the skin color of the defendants. In his post on Pajamas Media, J. Christian Adams, makes a clear point about equality in enforcement of our laws:

The best thing that could happen from the ugly New Black Panthers dismissal and public revelation of the truth is for the Department to change course. The outrage I have heard in hundreds of emails and in calls from around the nation tell me Americans value equal enforcement of the law as much as they cherish the right to vote without men with weapons shouting racial slurs at them. Equality and the right to vote are sacred partners.

If these hearings prompt the Department to reconsider the institutional hostility to equal enforcement of voting laws, then it will be a great day for America. We will all be able to exhale and declare: “Thank goodness they finally followed the law.” If it took attention for them to change course, we can all agree the attention was good.

Not surprisingly, the Philadelphia Inquirer makes no mention of this blockbuster of a story on today’s (7/7/10) front page (see photo below). Then again, this paper endorsed candidate Obama, the journalists employed at the Inq (save one) do not have the courage to speak truth to power when the politician has a ‘D’ dangling after their name. Oh, note that there is no mention of the world’s worst ecological disaster on the front page as well. How far will the Inquirer and its journalist compromise their credibility in order to carry water for Obama and his administration?

Front Page Philly Inquirer


Sharia Law Comes to Michigan

Four Christians (Acts 17 Apologetics) were arrested while handing out literature outside a  Moslem festival in Dearborn, MI.  The video is unbelievable – EIGHT armed police officers approached three of the Christians handing out literature to question them, one of the officers walked over to the videographer and confiscated his video camera. So much for first amendment rights in Dearborn, MI.

For those new to the story – Dearborn, Michigan is a hotbed for islamic terror cells.

Ed Morrissey reports that the Thomas More Law Center has agreed to represent the four Christian evangelists.  Ed makes a great point: Note to the defendants: Don’t forget to ask for damages. A lot of damages. Millions upon millions would be my suggestion.

Related: Pamela Gellar slams sharia and LGF Charles Johnson in one spectacular post.


Obama’s Oil Based Speech

Tomorrow, Obama will finally address the nation on the status of the oil disaster in the Gulf. It’s only been 56 days since the explosion of the BP oil rig.  This is a time for leadership, not pass-the-buckmanship.

Good Lord, the same liberal neophytes excoriated President Bush for a 6 minute delay during 9/11, yet they are curiously silent on this epic disaster. Just think of the outrage if President Bush dithered about for 56 days before addressing the nation after 9/11?

In advance of this speech, I’ve created a poll to see what talking points will be shared with the American public. Not holding my breath for any solid action plan to be revealed:

The Bitter American tells it like it is – Obama, Talk is Cheap. Love this blog!

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...