A little off-color holiday entertainment, courtesy of your slightly warped webmaster. From my family to your family, Have a safe and happy Christmas.

Full Metal Christmas

Raging Rudolph

Santa Is A Dick

Santa on C.O.P.S.

And Finally… A Black Metal Christmas Carol

The following article was written by Cassandra of POLITEIA.  It is part of an ongoing series on Dangerous United Nations Schemes Barack Obama Could Buy Into.  Please visit her blog and subscribe to her RSS feed.  

Whereas founded as a diplomatic forum to prevent armed conflict between states, the UN as yet has failed to define terror or terrorism, the primary means used by insurgents in asymmetrical warfare that now seems to be the defining mode of conflict of our time. The failure is illustrative of the political schisms that divide the world today. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the UN failed to produce objective definitions on which there was agreement.

The impasse has prevented the adoption of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. The prime reason is the standoff with the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), who seek to define terrorism in terms that are sympathetic to armed campaigns waged by the Palestinians against Israel.

Such insurrections, say the OIC, represent legitimate resistance against occupation and should not be classed at terrorism. The report of the Chairman of the Working Group on terrorism dating October 24, 2008 gives no hope that the OIC’s stonewalling of a comprehensive convention against terrorism will come to an end any time soon.
Meanwhile, countries like the US and the UK have been calling for a definition which includes that “deliberate and unlawful targeting and killing cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance.”

Terrorism is primarily a tactic – a means of conflict. Defining it as a means (IEDs, suicide killings, car bombs) makes terrorism appear less legitimate than as an end (such as insurgency, revolution, or uprising). Ends always depend on subjective interpretations, while means do not.
Generally speaking, terrorism is widely viewed as violence towards a political end. But this perspective is not universally accepted. Some scholars associate it with the deliberate evocation of terror. Others argue that motivations are irrelevant. Such readings, as also including violence against or by the military, risk so generalizing the term terrorism, making it practically meaningless.

The word “terrorism” itself compounds the difficulty of the ‘international community’ agreeing on a definition. A 2003 study by the US Army counted 109 definitions, covering a total of 22 different definitional elements. During the 1970s and 1980s, a UN attempt foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination.

The problem is not new. The definition dispute between states rages since the laws of war were first codified in 1899. There are entities like francs-tireurs, unlawful combatants, armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation, and racist regimes. That resistance movements may or may not be labeled terrorist, are considered lawful or unlawful combatants, and their right to resist occupation is recognized, is seen as a political judgment rather than one of ethics – or even an objective description.

What it comes down to is that to a number of UN member states, terrorism is seen as a legitimate means, in which the distinction between civilians and armed forces is immaterial. To a collectivist, no sole individual is ever completely innocent.

It is astonishing in the light of history that in a civilized world we do not differentiate between ends. Over 100 million dead in order to realize totalitarian ‘paradises’ of various hue have failed to discredit collectivism in the eyes of the international community; the cultural and moral relativism of political correctness has failed to denounce these systems as anti-human and evil.

Democratization doesn’t make a collective less evil. On the contrary, it legitimizes it to outsiders, leaves dissenters in the lurch and it rationalizes it in the eyes of the leadership, indeed emboldens them even further.

In the course of its bloody history only National Socialism, Fascism and Cambodian egalitarian agrarianism have drawn enough outrage to be condemned, as if its ideological siblings of Communism, Arab Nationalism and Islamofascism are not affected by the same anti-human tribalism. But on the contrary, these ideologies have made it to the ranks of unofficially recognized forms of government.

We know from experience that collectives subordinate human beings to ideologies and the whims of the ones in power, usually in the name of an imaginary ‘common will’. The notion has killed more people world-wide than the bubonic plague ever will.

Scowering down a list of ongoing cataclysms, save one notable exception, we are unable to produce a legitimate struggle for freedom in the sense that it actually aims at bringing liberty to its people, whether it be the Marxist IRA, or the Basque question, Sri Lanka, Colombia, or the Islamofascist varieties in Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Thailand, Indonesia, Nepal or Chechnya. Even the Kurdish (PKK) struggle is Marxist in nature. The jury is still out on the regions of the former Yugoslavia.

The exception is telling the true story: the Tibetan struggle is largely peaceful in its execution, and respects the lives of the people. All others have no qualms of sacrificing individuals to the collective cause.

The terror tool subordinates everything and everyone. Honest people understand that only criminal sociopaths use that sort of unconscionable methods. Greek intelligence analyst Ioannis Michaletos has concluded there’s a relation between terrorism and organized crime: where there are IEDs and chopped heads, armed robberies and trafficking are usually not very far off.

Criminality may be described in terms of taking shortcuts, either to money, goods or some other value. Terrorists could be seen as political criminals in that they seek a shortcut to power by subordinating all to their ’cause’. Where they succeed, we see the outcome. Instead of a liberation of the people, the result is a den of crime and oppression, often a failed state, from Taliban Afghanistan to the pirate ridden seas off the coast of Somalia.

The UN, egged on by the relativist world view that every intent goes to self-determination, ignore the reality that entire populations are enslaved to evil and the whims of power-hungry collectivists. In the end, surprised and caught off guard they can but stand by helplessly and condemn the latest instance of mass human rights violations, waiving their deontological ‘get-out-of-jail’ cards to absolve themselves from the bad consequences despite the good intentions. But on the contrary … by their fruits you shall know them.

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is relativist bromide that plasters over all distinctions i
n intent. The fallacy is a mental enemy which prevents us from making moral distinctions, prevents us from defending against such evils. The good has nothing to gain from evil, evil has everything to gain from the good.

The UN is the primary global platform for diplomatic relativism. In the ethical vacuum that ensues, the wannabe world government cannot be entrusted to pass judgment even the most basic of questions, the condemnation of human sacrifice to the gods of tribalistic ideology.
ends.

Photo Credit:

• David Paul Ohmer

Image via CrunchBase

If you have a chance today, join our blog network on Facebook. Great place to meet other conservatives.

Click here to join.

Last night the wind chill here was as cold as -30°F.

Las Vegas is dealing with more snow than they have seen in nearly 30 years.

For the second year in a row, it has snowed in Malibu.

In Florida, it’s so cold that it’s raining iguanas. 

Illinois continues to try to get power back to residents who lost it in a winter storm.  Plus, kids are left on the sidewalk because it was so “brutally cold” the school buses wouldn’t start.

Seattle recorded the coldest temperature since 1990, which is one of the 10 warmest years on record.

It was too cold and icy there for some buses to run.

In North Dakota, wind chill temperatures were almost -50° over the weekend.

Copper Mountain, Colorado recorded 100 inches of snow before winter officially started.

Canada may see it’s entire country blanketed in snow for Christmas, the first time that has happened  since 1971.

Europe is bracing itself for a “severe cold wave.”

In Thailand, the government says “33 provinces have been affected by extreme cold weather conditions.”

Italy had to deal with the Gore Effect, resulting in record snow…in autumn.

Siberia is dealing with -60°C, or -76°F.  That’s without windchill.  The record cold there is -69°C.

Seeing that cold weather is far deadlier than warm weather, killing twice as many, I think it’s time to say, “Thanks, Al.  Mission accomplished.  You can stop now.  Please.”

This is a very cool program Billboard  has going.  From the site:

Give the gift of free music to a Soldier in the U.S. Army this holiday season, completely free of charge.

Billboard’s got the free tunes. You have the message. Just fill out the simple form below, and we will send your message and a unique PIN Code for two free music downloads to a currently enlisted Soldier.

PROGRAM RUNS THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST, 2008.
LIMIT ONE PER USER.

It gives you the option of three different messages, or you can write your own.  Takes you maybe a minute.  Worth the time to do it.

Some gays are in a tissy over President-elect Obama selecting Saddleback minister Rick Warren to read his invocation.  Pastor Warren, they say, is the wrong choice because of his opposition to gay marriage.

Attention gay community:  Barack Obama said HE’S against gay marriage.  Here’s the video.  Look for yourself:

Here is another video where he goes deeper into defining his opposition to gay marriage, and it comes surprisingly close to my position on the subject:

As I told a friend of mine at church yesterday, marriage should not even be a concern of the government.  “Marriage” is a religious ceremony.  As far as the government is concerned, they can recognize that two consenting adults have entered into a contractual agreement on certain issues, but recognizing a religious ceremony really isn’t their place.

Two grown men or women should not be prohibited from entering into a legal, binding contract together, for whatever reason.

With that being said, I don’t think the LGBT community is the one that should be really upset here.  It should be the religious community that is upset with Pastor Rick Warren for accepting the offer.

Rick Warren is anti-abortion.  He has spoken out about it time and time again.  Yet when confronted with the fact that Obama is the most radical pro-abortion President ever to win election, Saddleback put the AIDS/HIV pandemic above the right to life:

Saddleback responded with a statement acknowledging “strong opposition” to Obama’s participation. The church said participants were invited because of their knowledge of HIV/AIDS and that Warren, author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” opposes Obama’s position on abortion and other issues.

“Our goal has been to put people together who normally won’t even speak to each other,” the Saddleback statement said. “We do not expect all participants in the summit discussion to agree with all of our evangelical beliefs. However, the HIV/AIDS pandemic cannot be fought by evangelicals alone. It will take the cooperation of all — government, business, NGOs and the church.”

It is more important for more money to be spent on HIV/AIDS than it is to take a stand against abortion?  Do you know how many people have died from AIDS worldwide?  22 million.  Do you know how many abortions have taken place just in America since Roe v. Wade in 1973?

49, 551,703.

Obama said at a Planned Parenthood conference prior to his election that the first thing he would do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act:

For those who don’t know about the Freedom of Choice Act, here is an idea of what would do:

FOCA provides that “[i]t is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.”

Further, FOCA would specifically invalidate any “statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action” of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official (or any person acting under government authority) that would “deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose” abortion, or that would “discriminate against the exercise of the right . . . in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.”

Clearly, its reach is very broad. This single piece of legislation would apply to any federal or state law “enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of [its] enactment.”

Before you say that is just propaganda from
a pro-life organization, please look at this from Sen. Barbara Boxer’s website:

The Freedom of Choice Act of 2004 would establish a statutory right to choose within the same parameters articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

That means women would have the absolute right to choose whether to continue or terminate their pregnancies before fetal viability, and that right would be protected by this legislation.

The Freedom of Choice Act also supersedes any law, regulation or local ordinance that impinges on a woman’s right to choose.

Barack Obama’s position on abortion is that it should be available to any mother at any time during the pregnancy, and supports the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill so radical, the Catholic Church vows “war” (h/t Weasel Zippers) if Obama signs the bill into law:

Mr. Obama signing the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) “would be the equivalent of a war,” a senior Vatican official told Time magazine last week.“It would be like saying, ‘We’ve heard the Catholic Church and we have no interest in their concerns.’ ” At a recent Baltimore meeting, the U.S. Catholic bishops pledged to challenge Mr. Obama on his defense of abortion rights.

It could also result in the closing of Catholic Hospitals across America.  From Slate (h/t Stop the ACLU):

While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn’t stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn’t be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute “material cooperation with an intrinsic evil.”

The bishops are not bluffing when they say they’d turn out the lights rather than comply. Nor is Auxiliary Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis exaggerating, I don’t think, in vowing that “any one of us would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow—to die tomorrow—to bring about the end of abortion.”

Whatever your view on the legality and morality of abortion, there is another important question to be considered here: Could we even begin to reform our already overburdened health care system without these Catholic institutions? I don’t see how.

Catholic hospitals make up one third of America’s hospitals.  This bill would result in the closure of all of them.

So, are the gays and lesbians really the ones who should be outraged?  Not at all.  They know Obama’s position on the matter of gay marriage before the election.  The real outrage should be in the evangelical community, aimed at Pastor Rick Warren, for allowing himself to be used by the Obama campaign to solidify the image as a centrist.  When it comes down to it, that’s the only reason why he chose Pastor Warren, and the only reason he does any number of things.

Appearances.

• In His Response to Gen. Colin Powell, Rush Limbaugh is Absolutely Correct
  Posted on Tuesday, December 16th, 2008
  Over the weekend, Gen. Colin Powell said that the Republican Party needed to stop shouting at the world, whatever that means.  He said some other troubling things as well, such as: “I think the party has to take a hard look at itself,” Powell said in the interview, which was taped Wednesday.
• Store Refuses to Make Cake for 3 Year Old Adolf Hitler Campbell
  Posted on Tuesday, December 16th, 2008
  There are times when you read something, and you really feel that a facepalm isn’t enough to express the stupidity of what you just read.  This is one of those stories. Two sub-moronic parents are outraged, yes, outraged that ShopRite wouldn’t make a birthday cake for their 3 year old.  The store said it would be inappropriate.
• Obama’s Energy Sec. Wants Gasoline Prices To Be Three Times Higher
  Posted on Thursday, December 18th, 2008
  Gasoline where I am is back down to $1.49 a gallon.  The national average right now is about $1.65 a gallon.  The Eco-Marxists aren’t happy with the price of gasoline being low.  If you remember during the primaries, even Barack Obama said the price wasn’t bad, it just rose too fast.
• Democrats Will Attempt To Re-Impose The Fairness Doctrine
  Posted on Thursday, December 18th, 2008
  Earlier this week, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said she would work on bringing back the federal regulation that requires equal time for the expression of different political views on the public airwaves. Click HereSurprise! Surprise! America’s march leftward into a dictatorial socialist state continues apace.
• Happy Birthday Duane
  Posted on Sunday, December 21st, 2008
  Today is Duane’s birthday today. As you know, Duane is the driving force behind All American Blogger. He’s our main writer, our editor, and it’s his voice that defines this website. Everything he does here is in addition working a full time job, and doing all the things a man with a wife and 4 kids has to do.

Today is Duane’s birthday today. As you know, Duane is the driving force behind All American Blogger. He’s our main writer, our editor, and it’s his voice that defines this website. Everything he does here is in addition working a full time job, and doing all the things a man with a wife and 4 kids has to do.

Having known Duane for more than twenty years, I can tell you that he is one of the nicest guys you could ever hope to meet, and that he cares very deeply about his country. All the time he devotes to this website stems from that love for the United States of America.

Duane, I appreciate the hours and hours that you devote to All American Blogger. More than anything though, I appreciate your friendship.

I hope you’ll all join me in wishing a very happy birthday to my friend Duane.

Comments are open, feel free to send him a shout.

I saw this over on Mashable. Tweet Congress is a site that lists all the politicians using Twitter, shows them by state and even shows who isn’t using the microblogging phenomenon. Those who are not can be petitioned right on the site to start tweeting.

Good way to get your Republican reps more active on the Web.

President Bush pledged to give GM and Chrysler almost $18 billion in taxpayer money, because they are too big to fail.

The federal government will help Detroit’s ailing automakers survive at least another few months by offering $17.4 billion in rescue loans in exchange for concessions from carmakers and their workers.

The government will have the option of becoming a stockholder in the companies, much as it has with major banks, in effect partially nationalizing the industry.

Nationalizing the auto industry. Nationalizing the banking industry. Nationalizing, nationalizing, nationalizing.

This is the kind of stuff Chavez does, but under the guise of fairness to the people. This is a terrible road to go down, but no one is standing on the Captiol steps screaming, “STOP! This is America! We are capitalists! This is socialism! We can’t do this!”

The government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem. It helped create this mess, and damn near every mess they are trying to clean up right now. You can’t solve a problem with the same thinking that created it. You can’t solve it by throwing more and more money at it.

You only subsidize failure.

Jimmie at the Sundries Shack say this is more than a transfer of wealth. He says it’s a transfer of pain:

The only reason that the President authorized those loans is to avoid the “pain” that GM and Chrysler’s employees might feel from layoffs and work slowdowns. Unfortunately, pain is a fact of life and no amount of government padding makes it go away. It just transfers that pain to other people – namely you and me.

Conservatives understand that. We don’t like it, but we’re not so foolish as to believe that we can make things better by sending one person’s pain to someone else we believe in our arrogance should bear it.

Pain transferred is not pain averted. It’ll wait and magnify until more people feel the pain that only a few needed to feel in the first place. The fallacy of government tinkering with the economy is that all that ever results from such tinkering is that a a minor hurt today becomes a major one tomorrow.

And then there is Fred Thompson:

We are taking more steps across the bridge to dependence. If this is what the Republicans have to offer, and they are the party of limited government, we are lost.

I’ve just added a new T-Shirt to the All American Blogger Shirt Shop.

You can show your support for the 2nd Amendment and show your support for one of your favorite blogs (yeah, I mean us) at the same time. The front of the shirt has the blue “Great Seal of All American Blogger” on the pocket area, and the back features the slogan “I Carry A Gun Because A Cop Is Too Heavy”. The shirt is on sale now for $22.99 and you can order one by clicking on the shirt you see to the right, or by clicking here.

Earlier this week, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said she would work on bringing back the federal regulation that requires equal time for the expression of different political views on the public airwaves. Click Here

Surprise! Surprise! America’s march leftward into a dictatorial socialist state continues apace. How fitting that this particular part of “The Rush To Silence Rush” will be led by a leftist from the left coast. And check this: they want to expand it to cover Cable and Satellite programming. Already, our socialist Congress is over-reaching! But that is an article for another day!

Yes, I do mean a socialist Congress. For that is what we have. Do not try to feed me the garbage about a “centrist” Congress or a “centrist” President-Elect Obama. If you really want to see what the left considers “Centrist” look at this graph:

(L) I____ (I) _____(I)_________I (R)

(The Political Spectrum)

The baseline is the political spectrum and the second ‘I ‘ from the left is the location, on that spectrum, the left identifies as the “center” or “centrist.” Do you see how lop-sided their definition of “centrist” is? Seen on paper, as above, it quickly becomes a joke! Except… it ain’t funny. It is scary as the dickens! But this is what they are selling as centrist politics these days.

They are leftists, socialists… plan and simple. The free dictionary (Click Here) defines socialist as: 1. An advocate of socialism. 2. Often Socialist A member of a political party or group that advocates socialism.

The same dictionary defines socialism as: 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. CLICK HERE

Someone has said that socialism is like cancer. It eventually kills its host. Truer words were never spoken. Yet, Americans are rushing to embrace the despicable disease of socialism for which only national suicide is a cure.

When you objectively survey the Congress we have today, grasping control of our industry and business with bailouts and loans… no other description fits. We HAVE a socialist government!

But, J. D., you ask, what has socialism to do with the Fairness Doctrine? It is a fair question. The answer: Freedom of speech is a threat to socialism. Why? When citizens are allowed the freedom to express their concerns about socialism, especially on the airwaves, the thought process of the human being will be spurred into action. When people begin to think rationally they immediately come to the realization that socialism does nothing to raise them up. All it does is bring everyone down to the same level. There is no chance to succeed at anything. It eventually suffocates the will to prosper, to succeed, or to excel at anything. Freedom of speech cannot be allowed in a socialistic society.

So, now they are going after our freedom of speech. Hey, why not? It is only a continuation of their shredding of the constitution.

As I have said, a number of times before, I am mightily afraid of the very real possibility that they will extend it to cover the Internet as well. Those of us in the blogosphere may find our free speech stifled just like that of the broadcasters. Don’t think it can’t happen. As a Blogger who has had his blog locked, already, and access denied to him, I can tell you it is a horrifying feeling. One feels as if one has been muzzled.

One of the chief concerns of the left is freedom of speech. It is troublesome for them. When you look at the countries around the globe in which the Left has taken over established governments you quickly see that the very first thing they do… is muzzle the broadcast stations and the print media which is not supportive of the Left. It is what they do.

And that is exactly what the Left is trying to do with the Fairness Doctrine. They intend to neutralize the Broadcast Media.

Representative John Boehner (R) of Ohio said in a News Release: “The so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ would restrict free speech on the public airwaves, stifling dissent at a time when an open national dialogue about our country’s future is essential.” Boehner went on to say: “The American people do not believe the federal government should be in the business of dictating or restricting the content of political speech. I’m troubled by Rep. Eshoo’s comments, and my hope is that President-elect Obama will speak out against efforts by members of his party to use their majority power to limit free speech and dissent.”

The Broadcast Media is a powerful force for freedom. It is truly the voice of the people. And therein lies the rub! Vox populae. The people’s voice(s). Broadcast media with a conservative message is a threat to the political left. Give them credit for understanding that, at least.

The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees Americans freedom of speech. The Constitution does not, however, grant Americans the right to have someone actually listen to, or read, what they may speak or write. Nowhere does it guarantee an American the right to be heard or read! I can make my opinions known on my blog, and here in this space, and you can decide whether you want to read what I have to say, or not. There are no guarantees. The Fairness Doctrine would deny Americans the freedom to at least HEAR what others have to say, especially those who espouse conservative ideology and opinions.

Look, America has given up entirely too much of it’s freedom, beginning with the Lincoln Administration, to present. It is past time to call a halt to the encroaching anarchy of the socialist left on our freedom. We should do it now while there are still a few of us around who remember what a great nation the US used to be.

Author: J.D. Longstreet

Originally published at WesternFront America

Gasoline where I am is back down to $1.49 a gallon. The national average right now [Dec 18, 2008] is about $1.65 a gallon.

The Eco-Marxists aren’t happy with the price of gasoline being low. If you remember during the primaries, even Barack Obama said the price wasn’t bad, it just rose too fast.

To the green mafia, the price of gasoline should be so high that people can’t drive to work and have to rely on public transportation. And if the market won’t keep the price high, government will.

Steven Chu is Obama’s nominee for Energy Secretary. Here’s what he thinks about gas prices:

In a sign of one major internal difference, Mr. Chu has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work.

Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Mr. Chu, who directs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in September.

The price of petrol in Europe right now is more than three times the price of gasoline in America So, given Mr. Chu’s preference, instead of paying $1.49 per gallon, I would be paying $4.50 a gallon. Instead of a tank of gas costing me $17 and some change, it would take $54 out of my wallet. For the record that would be $37 in taxes for each tank of gas I buy.

Believe it or not, this is what the environmentalists voted for. This is exactly what they want from an Obama government. This is the change they believed in, and we can expect more of the same across the board.

One last quote from Mr. Chu to illustrate my point:

“Coal is my worst nightmare.”

What do you think will happen to energy prices under him?

I have a job review coming up soon.  If I sit down with my employer, and he says, “Well, Duane…I have spoken with the other line supervisors and collectively, about 12% of us think you are doing a good job,” what kind of raise can I expect this year?

I wouldn’t deserve a single red cent.  If only 12% of the people I work for think I am doing a good job, I should not get a raise, as I have not earned it.

However, if you were to allow the line staff to vote for their raise, regardless of how they performed, you could expect something like this:

A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.

Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.

Well, maybe they are really struggling to get by, right?  Not so much:

In the beginning days of 1789, Congress was paid only $6 a day, which would be about $75 daily by modern standards. But by 1965 members were receiving $30,000 a year, which is the modern equivalent of about $195,000.

Currently the average lawmaker makes $169,300 a year, with leadership making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) makes $217,400, while the minority and majority leaders in the House and Senate make $188,100.

The Congress critters are making over three times what I am making, they are not doing their Constitutional duty, they are failing the American people and they vote themselves an even bigger chunk of American taxpayer money.

Maybe I should just tell my supervisor that I voted myself an automatic raise.   

Photo Credit:

• Jenny Downing

A study done by real scientists has come to the conclusion that Barack Obama cannot be corrupted by power. Since it’s science, I guess I can’t argue with it:

“Our research suggests that people may not need to worry too much about power corrupting Obama,” according to Joe Magee of New York University, who collaborated in the study.

“His newfound power might enable the change he desires rather than that power changing him instead. This is contrary to what most people think: that the longer he works in Washington the more he will be influenced by the same old ways of doing things,” Magee added.

So there it is. Just because Obama grew up politically in a culture that has had 1000 arrests for political corruption since 1971 doesn’t mean that this new power will corrupt him. I mean the power will be “changed,” not Obama.

And let’s not question the study. I mean, they did five experiements, ok? Five.

Obama is a rock.

Hat Tip: House of Eratosthenes

Photo Credit: