HELP WANTED: Fact Checker for Speech-erific Political Candidate

No experience necessary... must be proficient with Wikipedia.

Barack Obama says that we have George Bush to blame for the emergence of commie thug Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. According to Obama, Bush's neglect and failure to support friendly leaders created a "vacuum" into which the likes of Chavez have stepped.

Ooops... Hugo Chavez was elected president in 1998. Either President Clinton, sometime before 1998, turned over responsibility for South American foreign policy to then Governor of Texas George W. Bush or Barack Obama's internet access is on the fritz.

I'm eager to hear Obama's excuse for such an idiotic gaffe. I'm sure that it's just another in the long line of distractions and dirty political tricks foisted on the American public by his opponents. How dare these people call attention to Obama's glaring lack of historical knowledge. We should all just shut up and let the man eat his waffles!

The only plausible explaination for Obama's failure to check such a simple fact is a combination of laziness and supreme overconfidence that he can say and do anything without being questioned by the voting public. So far the polls suggest that many voters are so commited to Obama's candidacy (or at least to the noble concept of it) that nothing could cause them to waiver. Not even the fact that the man is dangerously ignorant of the most basic facts of history. Perhaps he was distracted by the painful memories of his uncle moving to the Soviet Union and joining the Red army just in time to help liberate Auschwitz which had recently been moved from Poland to Germany.

It's reminiscent of the old joke that during the impeachment trials Bill Clinton could have walked down a public street in broad daylight mowing people down with a machine gun and the reaction of his supporters would have been, "oh well, nobody lives forever!"

Obama and Clinton: Any Government Power You Can Expand, I Can Expand Better

It would be funny if it weren't so frightening. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are trying to outdo each other in the magnitude to which each promises to expand the power of the government.
Obama suggests that he plans to put an end to such evil practices as driving SUVs, eating as much a person wants, and enjoying climate controlled homes. Here's the money-quote:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK... That's not leadership. That's not going to happen,"

Exactly what is "not going to happen" if Obama is elected President? Will Americans still have the freedom to drive SUVs, eat as much as we want, or control the temperature in our own homes? The presumptive Democrat nominee believes that all this freedom we enjoy to live our lives as we choose needs to be curbed in order to make sure the rest of the world is "OK" with us. By "leadership" does he mean that the Philosopher/King Obama will decide for us what we will drive, how much we will eat, and where our thermostats will be set? If not, then will he please explain what he means by "that's not going to happen."

Not to be outdone, Hillary announced that the government under an HRC presidency will have the power to decide how much profit a company (big evil oil especially) will be allowed to make. She would like to claim for herself the power to take the rest and use it to fund a tax break for the rest of the country. If big oil has too much money, as HRC suggests, then doesn't it follow that big government has WAY too much money? The big oil companies are pikers compared to the government when it comes to taking exorbitant amounts of our money. HRC won't ask big government go without their kickback on the price we pay at the pump... Hillary wants to take that money from the pockets of private citizens.

If this stuff doesn't scare you, you just might be a socialist.

NBA Referees Ensure Game 7 Revenues in Celtics Cavaliers Series

Why do they even pretend anymore? It has been openly discussed for years by players, coaches and fans that officials in the NBA make calls in favor of star players presumably to boost their performance and marketability. When a rookie is asked about a foul call that didn't go their way we often hear them respond that the star players "just get those calls" as if it's an accepted fact in the league.

In the Celtics Cavs game last night one blatently bad call after another went in the favor of Lebron James and the hometown Cavs. A charging call against the Celtic's Paul Pierce was so egregious that the announcers seemed stunned into silence.

Slanted officiating has long been a factor in home-court advantage. Naturally, the league understands that they can draw more fans to arenas to see home teams win than to see them lose. Calls that favor the home team are routinely chalked up to home-court advantage by commentators who opine, "that's a call that you seem to get at home." The current New Orleans/San Antonio series is tied 3 games to 3 with the home team winning each game by an average of over 17 points. Are they asking us to believe that these teams are 34 points better at home than on the road?

If the game is called correctly, shouldn't the officials be blind to the name on the player's jersey and where they are playing? Shouldn't the calls be consistent? If revenue from attendance and marketing are allowed to influence officiating, is it a stretch to believe that the league would order officials to make calls to extend playoff series to additional games? More games means more TV broadcasts, more ticket sales, etc.

Is it any wonder that the NCAA basketball tourney has grown in popularity while the NBA has lost fans? People like to watch sports because the results are uncertain. The NBA is killing the suspense for the fans!

Lookout! Obama is Outraged (Again)

The Democrats are all outraged... somebody must be telling the truth about them again.

George Bush went to Israel's 60th anniversary of statehood celebration and criticized unnamed persons (referred to simply as "some") whose desire to negotiate with terrorists and tyrants, according to Bush, is akin to the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s. Obama assumed that Bush was talking about him... egomaniacs assume people are always thinking about them. He was instantly joined by a chorus of wailing Democrats (Pelosi, Clinton, etc.) in the largest display of feigned indignation since their collective patriotism was supposedly questioned during the 2004 elections.

Why is it that when someone speaks out against the appeasement of terrorists and failing to support Israel, the Democrats (Obama in this case) are so sure that the speaker is talking about them? I vaguely remember a case when a Hollywood starlet threatened a lawsuit because she was sure that the promiscuous backstabbing villain in a fictional movie was based on her. Like the Democrats, she knew that she fit the description but should have been embarrased enough to keep quiet about it.

Here's what Bush said: (link to entire transcript - you won't find Obama's name in the speech)

Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)
Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.

I ask those who criticize Bush, do you agree or disagree with him on this point? If Obama agrees with him, why would he repeatedly state his desire to negotiate with Ahmedinijad? If he disagrees, why would he take offense in the belief that Bush was talking about him? Was he really just upset that the rousing ovation inspired by Bush's speech made it clear that he's on the wrong side of the argument with regard to the support of Israel?

Speed Racer first certified bomb of the summer

Here's a pitch for the Warner Bros. execs... let's make a 129 minute kid's movie, cast no major stars, and fill it with seizure-inducing special effects. What it lacks in plot and character development, we'll make up for with split-second editing and lots of bright colors. Oh yeah, we'll base it on a cartoon that no kid has ever seen.

Maybe the idea of casting John Goodman in a crappy cartoon-to-live-action remake was pitched as the can't-miss formula to recapture the magic that made the Flintstone movies such a mega-franchise.

Huffington vs. McCain: He said/She prattled

Arianna Huffington is desperate to be relevant. She is claiming that during a conversation that took place some time after the 2000 election, John McCain told her that he didn't vote for Gearge W. Bush. McCain denies saying it and assures whoever may care that he voted for Bush not once but twice (I assume he meant in two separate elections since he is not from Chicago.)

So let me get this straight... John McCain is supposed to be scandalized by the rumor that he didn't vote for the guy who, according to liberals, is the worst president in history. If you listen to liberals long enough (it usually takes about 2 minutes) they'll get around to telling you that no one voted for Bush except for the 5 evil members of the SCOTUS.

Arianna says that somehow this is proof that John McCain is a liar or a traitor Republican or some other bad thing... regardless we shouldn't vote for him because... uh... what was it he supposedly did again?

WIRE CHOIR BACK ONLINE!

It has been just over a year since creating this blog and I have finally decided to spend time tending it. I have also forwarded a link to this page to a few people to see if anyone would like to make this page a home for debate on the November election, the primaries , etc. Thoughtful comments are welcome and anything Lance has to say is welcome also.

Election 2008 activity is heating up with primary opponent clashes and the ubiquitous fundraising comparisons. While fundraising doesn't necessarily translate into votes in the general election next November, it cetainly ends up contributing to the weeding out process leading up to the primaries.
The MSM has been swooning over the handout collection skills of Hillary Clinton. Those of us who have paid attention know that her ability to get into people's wallets is nothin new. News now is that Obama is secretly (not so much a secret now that it's news) building up a warchest to rival that of her royal highness. As the donor list grows, it will interesting to see how the Democrat Hollywood millionaire/trial attorney/activist PAC money is spent trying to convince the everyday Americans that the Republicans are the party of the rich.