Liz Cheney "Bush and Cheney Kept America Safe For 8 Years"

Liz Cheney seems to be rivaling Sarah Palin in the "Dumb Republican Woman" category. Today, she shows up on Hannity, and takes advantage of the occasion where her father faces his most likely criminal investigation to date, as an opportunity to announce that she plans on running for political office at some point.

As she and Hannity ignored the actual allegations, which were that Dick Cheney ordered that the CIA keep Congress in the dark about a proposed program (an illegal order, of course), they instead focused on the plan itself, as if the plan itself were what was in question.

But the best part is when, at 3:50, she states that Bush and Cheney kept America safe for eight years. Point one, I wouldn't call 9/11 safe. Point two, if the Iraq War did keep us safe, I think that credit goes to the troops, not Bush and Cheney.

Dow Now Closes Higher Than On Inauguration Day

There was a time not much more than a month ago that right wing pundits were jumping all over Obama, taking great delight in the falling market, which they of course blamed on the president. The common sense realization that the market was in free fall for a long time leading up to Obama's inauguration was conveniently ignored, and the assumption was that unless the market took an immediate and swift turnaround hinging on Inauguration Day, that the losses were due to Obama's policies. The downward momentum ignored, we ended up with ridiculous analysis like this, from Fox News:



Well, at this point, I would expect a fair and balanced news source to remark on how the president's policies have indeed negated the downward momentum inherited from the beginning of his term, bringing us up to a higher close for the Dow Jones Industrial Average now than on Inauguration Day. However, instead I still hear utter discontent for his policies, and they've simply stopped using the Dow Jones chart as proof.

PROOF That Supporting Marijuana Legalization Doesn't Mean You're a Pothead.

These days, there is a growing movement to legalize marijuana, completely visible to anyone watching the news. There is evidence in the present existence of a media debate on the issue covered on news networks. There are polls coming out these days with numbers in favor of legalization previously unheard of. Just as during the Great Depression, the government decided to seize tax revenue from the black market for booze by overturning alcohol Prohibition, perhaps now, people are making the clear connection between a far too rich and powerful murderous Mexican drug cartel largely funded by marijuana, and our far too poor and struggling government pocketbook.

Barack Obama's website, whenever there is an opportunity for people to submit questions, is flooded with support for questions about the subject. His disrespectful dismissals of the questions posed by serious activists is cause for widespread anger from his internet audience, who he in a roundabout way calls potheads, regardless of his own past use of the herb. Mr. Obama had no problem with his internet audience during the campaign when we made it our own independent responsibility to spread the word about him, and support him every step of the way. Now he responds to completely legitimate questions about marijuana legalization by saying he "doesn't know what this says about [his] online audience." Well, I know what it says about him, and that is that he comes off like a hypocrite, and if he really believes this drug is so terrible that it warrants harsh imprisonment penalties, then its about time he paid his debt to society.

So why would president Obama react this way? Why would he bite the hands that lifted him to the top? Quite simply, the answer is that for far too long, anyone who supported the legalization of marijuana has been dismissed as a simplistic mind who only wants legalization so that they could be free to smoke this "drug" without fear of consequence. No amount of inarguable logic spoken by the legalization advocate would be taken seriously, no heed paid to the common sense and sensibility of the legalization platform. People seem much happier to let billions of dollars a year go directly into the hands of criminal organizations who can then turn around and fund operations dealing higher priced, harder drugs which are truly detrimental, and committing acts of violence, theft, fraud...

Well, I am getting really sick of this stigma placed on the legalization activist. So here is the debunking:

This first figure shown here can be found at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/, and it is a piece of a chart which shows past month marijuana usage in 1979 and the early 80's, by age.





Next, we have a figure from the Department of Health and Human Services. This, along with other pertinent charts can be found at http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k7nsduh/2k7Results.cfm#2.2





This chart, of course shows an undeniable trend of less people having used marijuana in the past month. This chart specifically only refers to the 18-25 age group, the group most commonly using marijuana, but any other statistics you will find anywhere will also support the conclusion that marijuana usage has gone down dramatically since 1979.

So, in accordance with logic, if proponents of legalization are all a bunch of potheads, then the numbers of those favoring legalization should take a similar drop between 1979 and now. Enter CBS poll from pollingreport.com.



Wow, amazing. This doesn't seem to correlate with the other data at all. When it comes to favoring legalization if for no other reason than just to help fund our government, the numbers have gone up by over 50% since 1979.

Does this logic make sense to those who think all legalization proponents are potheads? Probably not. They've written us off every other time we've spouted logic, so why should this time be any different?

My Blog Gets SERIOUS results!

About 3 days before the inauguration of Barack Obama, I finally wrote a blog urging people to do something I had been dreaming of for months. This blog was a plea for people to completely humiliate Bush on his way out of the presidency, during the Inauguration.

I had for some odd reason expected that Bush would be making a speech on Inauguration Day, and my suggestion was for the crowd to serenade him with a mortifying round of the song "Nanana, Hey hey hey, Goodbye!" Here's a link to the blog I'm referring to, notice the date...

The Blog That Got Results

Now some might say that I probably wasn't the only one to think of this way of jeering and humiliating this former president who I've loathed for many years. However, thinking that way is no fun, so I'm just going to assume I am the originator of the idea, and that someone saw my blog, and started the song, and it spread through the crowd much like the wave at sporting events.

Behold, the magnificent fruits of my labor. This is truly joyous:



Aww man! Did you see the look on his face? The reaction of the newspeople, like they were surprised? Thank you, everyone, for making my dream come true!

Let's Give Bush the Farewell He Deserves

Is it enough that Bush will be leaving office in 3 days, not for another vacation, but for good? Is it enough that he probably can't help but feel like he's failed miserably once again in his life as he peruses over his disastrous presidency and the record low approval numbers that result? Is it enough that the millions of Barack Obama supporters who will be at the inauguration will most likely boo him when he comes up to make his final speech?

Perhaps to an ordinary person, this all seems like enough of a burn to what's left of Bush's ego, but not me. I would love to see him completely humiliated in front of the world. Boos are boos, anyone can do them, and they mean nothing more than a spontaneous expression of disapproval. After McCain's supporters booed during his concession speech, the whole significance of booing a president was cheapened.

So what should we do instead? Well, I know that when I was a youngster in school, when playing on teams in gym class, the winning team would often chide the losing team with a hearty round of the old classic song "Kiss Him Goodbye" by Steam. Of course, the part they always sang was where it goes "Nanana na, nanana na, Hey hey hey, gooodbyyyyee" over and over again. Nothing could be more humiliating.

What better way would there be to express our joy as Americans that Bush has finally got to go, and what better way to embarrass and humiliate him, besides everyone throwing their shoes at him?

The best thing about this plan is that it only takes one person to start it. Its like the wave in a stadium: when it catches on, it spreads like wildfire. If you will be going to the Inauguration, whenever Bush comes on the stage to give his farewell address, start singing it with whoever you are with. You may be the person who starts what is projected to be 2 million people, all singing for joy at the end of this terrible president's term.

In case you don't know the tune, here's the old video.



Let's do this!

Was Israel Actually the One Who Broke the Cease Fire?

And if so, why is that not what we are being told on the mainstream media?

These questions would likely fall on the ears of many Americans as lies propagated by someone who is against Israel, or who is sympathetic to Hamas. Indeed, throughout the media, the reporting discussing the Israeli airstrikes and subsequent ground invasion of Gaza has been filled mostly with the sentiment that although Israel is using excessive force, they have no other option because they are only protecting themselves and responding to rocket fire, since Hamas felt it necessary to break the cease fire agreement.

Therefore, when one brings up this question, many see it as a lie. But how can a question be a lie? A question is not a manner of taking sides, its a manner of getting the record straight, and to rebuke questions of this sort means that the bias is actually in favor of Israel. If Israel were really at no fault, no question should be off limits, and no foreign press should be forbidden.

So what is the answer, what is the truth? The truth is that on Election Day, a day when every American had a much more intriguing news on their mind, Israel was the one who broke the cease fire by bombing a Hamas tunnel. Here is a clip from CNN where they fact check this allegation, and confirm that it is indeed true.



Of course, one of the commentators followed up the revelation by stating that Israel had no choice but to bomb this tunnel, because they were sure Hamas was going to use it to kidnap their soldiers, but this really misses the point. I'm sure Hamas isn't shooting rockets into Israel for the fun of it, and they probably feel that some excuse gives them just cause to do so.

Somehow, whenever Israel bombs or kills, our media justifies it, but when Hamas or Hezbollah or anyone else does it, nobody looks for a reason or an excuse, its simply not acceptable. Amazingly enough, even when Israeli munitions kill children, they still aren't found at fault, and instead Hamas is blamed for the fact that they don't build these targets in places where it is convenient for them to be bombed.

Hamas is far from innocent in this matter, but when all the excuses run out, and Israel doesn't seem so angelic compared to their enemies, there's always the old standby excuse of "Well, this is war, and during war, terrible things happen." Perfect, so in order to solve your problems, you go to war, and make a much worse situation.