Should Barack Obama Pardon Charlie Kushner?

Today Barack Obama pardoned millionaire developer Ian Schrager for his tax fraud in 1980. While he's at it, he should also probably pardon Charlie Kushner.

Charlie Kushner, of course, is Jared Kushner's father, Jared Kushner is Ivanka Trump's husband, and his loyalty to his father-in-law during the Presidential campaign helped elevate him to the powerful position of Senior Advisor to the President-elect (shudder) Donald J. Trump.

Back in 2005, Charlie Kushner was fined more than half a million dollars by the FEC for illegal campaign contributions (to Democrats) and spent 16 months in prison for those contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering. That witness tampering? Oh, he hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law so he could blackmail him.

Why should Obama pardon Charlie Kushner's misdeeds when his son is in bed with Trump(s)?

1. It's highly likely Trump will do it.

Speculation has swirled that Jared Kushner is out for revenge on those who turned their backs on his family and led to his father's downfall. Reports indicate that he was responsible for pushing New Jersey governor Chris Christie out of Trump's cabinet and transition team (Christie was the prosecutor who went after his father and forced him to take the plea deal). It's almost impossible to fathom Jared getting this far without an interest in securing a pardon for his father, who by all accounts he was close with. By pardoning Kushner before Trump can, Obama takes away any leverage Trump may have over Jared, making sure the newly-elected President can't dangle a pardon in exchange for his son-in-law's acquiescence. Not to mention  he steals Trump's thunder and makes sure that Donald isn't the one who gets to claim he did a great and merciful act for his son-in-law. You know that'll burn Trump, who always wants the credit for everything.

2. Kushner is a longtime loyal Democrat

Until his son married a Trump, and Democratic friends turned their backs on him, Kushner was a steady Democratic donor and ardent supporter of Democratic Party causes. Rewarding him for that loyalty might smooth over the bad blood and help win him and his family back from the dark side (Charlie hosted a fundraiser for Trump last year at the Kushner's seaside estate.)

3. It might help with the Jews.

Despite his unparalleled support for Israel during his Presidency, Barack Obama's reputation has suffered among Jews in this country and abroad due to right-wing propaganda. Why not overturn the narrative by pardoning one of Israel's biggest supporters? Before his conviction, Charlie Kushner, the son of a Holocaust survivor, was one of the world's leading philanthropists for Jewish causes. According to Mark Charendoff, president of the Jewish Funders Network,"If you look at the population of Jewish philanthropists who are committed to the Orthodox world, the Jewish world in general and the broader American community, and then layer on that a deep commitment to the welfare of Israeli society, there’s an awfully short list of people who meet that criteria and have the resources of Charles Kushner.”

Obama has shown that he's not above pardoning millionaires and billionaires who cheated the system. Ian Schrager's philanthropic contributions pale in comparison to Charlie Kushner's.

It's one thing Donald Trump can't publicly bash Obama for doing--and one thing that would certainly piss him off.

Why Mitt Romney Endangers American Lives

Four Americans are dead in Libya, including the U.S. ambassador to the country, after a rocket attack that came amidst protests against a cheesy, poorly produced, anti-Prophet-Muhammed film that was filmed in the United States and went viral in the Muslim world.

While the rest of the country mourned the dead and decried the act of violence, Mitt Romney went on the attack, accusing President Obama of apologizing to terrorists.

What actually happened is far different.

The American embassy in Cairo, feeling the heat from Muslim reaction to the film, distanced themselves from the film, stating in a tweet: "U.S. Embassy condemns religious incitement." That caught some flack for seemingly going against the right to free speech. They later wrote, "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

Now, the American embassy is doing exactly what its supposed to do. It is not the embassy's job to explain "sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me," to a populace that for decades was thrown in jail or murdered for proclaiming unpopular beliefs. It is the embassy's job to smooth things over. Their job is to avoid violence in the interest of maintaining diplomacy. The filmmakers certainly had the "universal right" to make their film, however, free speech is not without consequences. If you're Michael Richards and do stand up, and respond to African-American hecklers with liberal use of the n-word, you'd better get ready for the backlash. And as we know, unflattering portrayals of Mohammed (who, according to the Muslim religion, isn't even allowed to be represented in a positive image), often result in protests, which lead some extreme factions to violence.

It's simple cause and effect--insult Mohammed, incite violence. No one's saying violence is the appropriate response to hate speech. We're just saying, it happens. So if you don't want people to die, you should probably resist the urge to insult the prophet.

Now, lets say someone in this country does decide to insult Mohammed. It's their right, sure. But the U.S. government shouldn't be insulting Mohammed, the same way they shouldn't insult Jesus, or Moses, or any other religious leader. The problem is, when an American citizen's insult travels around the globe (the way Pastor Terry Jone's Koran burning did, or the way our soldiers pissing on the Koran did), America's enemies use it as a weapon against America. "See!" they tell their followers. "This is America. Not the home of the free, but the home of hate. They hate Islam! They want to destroy you!" They publicly screen that crappy anti-Mohammed video, and say to those inclined to listen, "This is what America is about! This is what America represents!" They take the action of one individual or one small group and use it to represent what America is all about.

To respond to those extremists, it is necessary for a representative of the United States to stand up and say, "No, this isn't what we're about. We believe in free speech, and that means, sometimes, one of our citizens says or films something idiotic and offensive, like the hit ABC show 'Bachelor Pad.' But we as a country also believe in the freedom of religion. And we believe that it is irresponsible, and wrong, to use one's right of free speech to denigrate and shame another person's freedom of religion."

That's what the embassy said. That's what Hillary Clinton said: "Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

It's a statement aimed at refuting what the extremists say-- that the actions by a very few represent the feelings of the greater whole. It condemns violence, while making it clear that perceived cause of the violence--religious intolerance--is not what America represents. In short: "What the extremists tell you is a lie."

Mitt Romney, clearly, does not believe this. Instead of standing up for the majority of Americans who don't think all Muslims are terrorists, he's standing up for the few that do. Instead of telling the world that this hateful, anti-Islam video doesn't represent the best of America, he's saying to the world that it does. Hate, according to Mitt Romney, is America's greatest export. And he's damn proud of it.

"It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks," Romney said.

Except, well, of any of the American representatives commenting on this attack, it's Romney who gives the terrorists what they want. Instead of telling the extremists, "Your justification for this violence is bogus," he's AGREED with them. He's saying America doesn't have to distance itself from the film the extremists used as an example of America's intolerance. Rather, he's arguing that America should defend and support what the film had to say! It's free speech, so Romney will stand by it to the bitter end, even if that speech was made by an Egpytian Coptic Christian with a criminal history who clearly intended for the film to cause violence.

As far as the international stage is concerned, it seems that Romney and Obama have very different ideas about how a President should behave. While Obama believes a President should show America is better than what its enemies say it is, Romney believes a President should show America is EXACTLY what its enemies say it is.

You decide which is better. You decide which action really sides with the terrorists.

Obama vs. Romney: Convention Speech Proposals

The Republican National Convention and Democratic National Convention are now over, and as Brian Williams reminded NBC viewers tonight, there are 60 days left before the Presidential election. Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama have delivered their longest speeches to date, presenting their best pitch to the nation.

But that's the thing. Both speeches were a lot of talk. A lot of rhetoric, patriotism, jokes, bluster, criticism of the other party that, depending on your viewpoint, could be deemed more opinion than fact. Truth is, while I might listen to every word, lets face it... a lot of Americans just get caught up in the whirlwind of language.

So I took the text of both the RNC and DNC keynotes, and cut out the patriotism, the bluster, the vague promises, the long-winded biographies, and biased lines about the other party’s views. I took out the things they promised NOT to do (because it's easy to say what you won't do, what you WILL do instead is a harder question to answer.) I was also careful to take out everything that seemed like more of a statement of principle or belief rather than a statement of definitive action. Because ultimately, despite wildly different belief systems, what happens in the next four years will come down to ACTIONS, not words. What actions do Romney and Obama find so important that they felt the need to mention them so clearly in their most important speech?

Behold, the specific, actionable proposals made by each candidate in their convention speeches--in their own words--edited only for grammar and readability.

Obama:

-Cut taxes for middle-class families and small businesses. 

-Reward companies that open new plants, train new workers and create new jobs in the United States of America. 

-Open new acres for oil and gas exploration.

-Invest in wind and solar and clean coal.   

-Commit to Israel’s security and pursue peace.

-Use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work rebuilding roads and bridges; schools and runways.

-Reform the tax code so that it’s simple and asks the wealthiest households to pay higher taxes on incomes over $250,000. 

Romney:

-Take full advantage of North American oil and coal and gas and nuclear and renewables.

-When it comes to the school your child will attend, every parent should have a choice.

-Reduce taxes on business. Simplify regulations.

-Repeal Obamacare.

-Protect the sanctity of life.

-Honor the institution of marriage.

So there you have it. It seems a lot simpler once you get rid of the fluff, no?

Both Romney and Obama want to increase the amount of energy produced in the U.S., but Obama believes renewable energy should be a large part of that, Romney believes that traditional energy resources like coal, oil, gas and nuclear power are the only way to go--he pointedly mocked the fight against global warming.

Obama wants to reduce taxes on the middle class while raising taxes on people making over $250,000. Romney wants to reduce taxes on businesses.

Obama wants to reward companies that keep jobs in America (presumably through tax breaks or incentives). Romney wants to "simplify regulations," which, while vague, indicates that he's up for repealing current laws intended to protect the environment, assure public safety, or limit potential fraud or financial abuse-- laws that might hurt a company's profit margin.

Obama wants to use money saved by ending the wars to "nation build" at home and thereby stimulate construction jobs. Romney wants to save money by ending "Obamacare." While he says he'll replace it, in this speech he's vague about what that replacement will be.

Obama made it a point to say commitment to Israel and the peace process must not waver. Romney made it a point to promote a voucher program to give families a choice of which school to send their child to.

Finally, Romney was very clear and emphatic near the end of his speech when he spoke on social issues. A law against abortion (although he did not say whether it would contain an exemption for rape victims or anything else). A law against gay marriage.

These are the things the candidates were most unequivocal about... and they seem a good indicator of what actions they would take while in office.

So What Year Is It Again?

Obama is expected to announce today an amendment to a rule requiring employers to provide health coverage that includes birth control-- something 99% of women in this country use, something that's been on the books since the year 2000, and something that hasn't been remotely controversial for more than two decades.

Meanwhile, NBC, the NFL and FCC are going crazy about a lewd, disgusting act at the Super Bowl that has threatened to destroy the fabric of American life and corrupt the youth of the nation forever...

M.I.A.'s split-second middle finger flash during the halftime show (something NO ONE at my Super Bowl party noticed on a 47 inch HDTV screen.):



Next up, Facebook to be charged with witchcraft because it allows members to "steal people's souls" by posting "photography."

As top YouTube commenter Syrennia Lestrange puts it:

Oh yeah, we should really care about a word people say and a gesture people make on a daily basis when poverty is running rampant and the country is in a recession.

Amen to that.

Pity The Millionaires



By Robbie Republican

Hello my fellow patriots. You're looking well, for now. I say, "for now," because if Obama and the devil spawn of the Democratic party has their way, all of us will soon be reduced to dressing in rags and mining for scraps of food in the bottom of our neighbors' trash cans in order to survive.

Obama's nefarious plan to fix the economy is two fold. First, spend nearly a half a trillion government dollars to fund construction projects, invest in new technologies and train new workers. Secondly, raise taxes on people making a million dollars a year or more.

I know, I know. I feel your outrage. Obama (Hussein) is basically proposing the same thing that criminal Robin Hoodlum did back in the day. Robbing the rich, who use their wealth for so many great things, and giving their money to the greedy, immoral poor, who will only use it to spend on things like drugs and hookers. No wonder my good friend Bill O'Reilly is threatening to quit if the legislation is enacted.

Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) is a perfect example of who this policy will hurt. He makes only a paltry $174,000 a year for his service to the country. And he barely makes $6.3 million a year from investments, his Subway franchises, and UPS stores. 6.3!!! That's such a tiny, tiny number!!

That's not all. With his tiny, minuscule income, King John needs to support his 500 employees, all of who DEMAND at at least $7.25 an hour for spreading mustard on turkey and licking stamps. He also has to pay for rent, equipment and supplies for the stores he owns. After that, he must spend nearly half a million dollars to buy new properties, create new stores and hire more workers. Would you believe this vicious cycle leaves him with only $200,000 to spend on food for his family?

I believe, because John Fleming is a rich man, and rich men are always honest and never exaggerate. Imagine how you and I would live if we only had $200,000 a year to spend on food for our family. I don't even want to imagine it. We'd probably have to fire our chef and eat at Denny's.

If John is struggling to get by now, just imagine what happens if Obama raises taxes on millionaires. John would be forced to close all his stores and fire all his employees. He'd have no choice but to abandon his mansion (who would be able to afford to buy it?) and live on the streets with his wife and their four adult children.

Meanwhile, all that government money gives the poor more money for drugs and pornography. John, his wife and four children now have to face an apocalyptic wasteland in which gangs of cracked out rapists roam the countryside, leaving a trail of wanton destruction and misery in their wake.

I dare not speculate further. There may be children reading this. But fear not. The Republicans will never let it happen, because unlike Democrats, we care about our country.

See, Republicans like me know the truth. The only way to save the economy is to stop giving so much money to the poor. We need to get rid of medicare and medicaid, get rid of the social security shell game, close public schools, eliminate affordable housing, and stop providing welfare. With all those crutches gone, the poor will instantly drape themselves in the finest suits and dresses (which I just know they have hiding in their closets), and will finally start trying to find jobs.

Where will they find jobs? Well, use the money we save to give another government bailout for mega corporations and millionaires. John Fleming will no longer have to fear his family going hungry. If John has only 500 sandwich makers and UPS drivers now, just think of how many he can hire if we make the Bush tax cuts permanent and reward the rich with even more money? Think of all the jobs that will be created! If we play our cards right, we can have a Subway restaurant on every street corner in America and they'll even deliver subs to your door via... you guessed it, UPS! By the Lord Jesus Christ, no one will go hungry again!

Because that's the way the economy works. Make the rich richer and it all trickles down, solving poverty and world hunger in one fell swoop. Heck, we even get to all be as healthy as that Jared guy. National Healthcare, get bent.

It hasn't happened yet, of course. Not yet. But once the Republicans are in charge again, it'll definitely happen. This time. Unlike the other times we tried it. Because this time will be different than the previous times. No Enron or Lehman Brothers to screw it up this time. Trickle down, this time for sure. It'll be proven correct, mark my words.

'Till next time, as always, I'm Robbie Republican. See you around the country club... for now.

So Maybe Barack Obama Wasn't Born In The States?

... Because apparently, Hawaii is not a state.

Two weeks after declaring war on Spain, US Rep. Francis Newlands (D-Nevada) submitted a resolution calling for the annexation of Hawaii by the United States. Influential military figures like Rear Admiral Alfred T. Mahan and General John Schofield testified that the possession of Hawaii by the United States was of "paramount importance." It was in this atmosphere that the Newlands Resolution moved from the House to the Senate and became a joint resolution which President McKinley signed, claiming to have successfully annexed the Hawaiian Islands.

On August 12, 1898, the Hawaiian flag was lowered, the American flag raised, and the Territory of Hawaii formally declared.

But... a Congressional joint resolution is American legislation restricted to the boundaries of the United States. The key to Hawaii's legal status... remains with the 1893 executive agreement between two heads of state: President Grover Cleveland and Queen Liliuokalani.

Unlike other land acquisitions made by cession and voluntary treaties with the French, Spanish, British, Russia and the 1848 Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty that ended the Mexican-American war... there is no treaty of cession, and thus no ceded lands, by then-acting head of state Queen Liliuokalani.

Oh, great. This ought to get the birthers riled up.

Proposed Ground Zero T.G.I. Friday's Fuels Debate, Criticism



Angry relatives of 9/11 victims last night clashed with supporters of a planned T.G.I. Friday's near Ground Zero at a raucous community-board hearing in Manhattan.

After four hours of public debate, members of Community Board 1 finally voted 29-1 in support of the project. Nine members abstained, arguing that they preferred a Chili's.

While the board has no official say over whether the T.G.I. Friday's gets built, already the decision has sent shockwaves throughout the country.

Carrying signs such as, "9/11 Was A Tuesday -- Not A Friday's!" opponents of the proposed casual dining establishment several blocks away from Ground Zero called the plan an insult to the terror-attack victims.

"I mean, have you eaten there lately? It's overpriced crap that tastes like garbage. There's a better way to honor those we lost than the new Jack Daniel's Burger," said a retired FDNY firefighter.

He also raised concerns that terrorists could take advantage of the new restaurant, so close to the location of the largest terrorist attack on American soil.

"I do have a problem with having a T.G.I. Friday's on top of the site where terrorists can sit and enjoy the 3 For $12.99 dinner special," he said, referring to the popular limited-time promotion that includes an appetizer, entree and dessert for $12.99.

Harvey Fakerbean, representing T.G.I. Friday's at the community board meeting, insisted that the restaurant would help "bridge the great divide" between different cultures.

"We have Bruchetta Chicken Pasta, from Italy, the Sizzling Fajitas, from Mexico, Pot Stickers from Asia, the California Turkey Burger and the New York Strip from the United States." Fakerbean said. "We have no higher aspirations than to serve our customers in peace and harmony in this country."

But the crowd got ugly when he added, "Freedom of assembly is the right of all Americans."

Amid boos, one woman shouted, "Not at the World Trade Center!"

Fakerbean's wife, Daisy, followed him to the microphone and pitched the planned restaurant as "much needed party space and much needed dining space" for the area.

She was roundly booed.

President Barack Obama declined to comment on the wisdom of building a restaurant located several streets down and around the corner from the Ground Zero site where tourists buy souvenir t-shirts and commemorative buttons. But he did release a statement saying, "They have a right to build a place of dining and drinking on private property in lower Manhattan. But yeah, I prefer Chili's too. That Awesome Blossom. Delish."

Former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin weighed in on the debate on her Facebook page, challenging the President to take a stronger stand against the red-stripe canopied restaurant.

"We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they?" Palin wrote. "And, no, this is not above your pay grade. If those who wish to build this Ground Zero Friday's are sincerely interested in providing a fun, family-friendly atmosphere and good food at affordable prices, then why haven't they recognized that the decision to build a restaurant at this particular location is doing just the opposite? Plus, they charge for breadsticks now. Breadsticks!"

Before the meeting, the Manhattan Borough President, a supporter of the T.G.I. Friday's, stood in front of the site and said, "What we're rejecting here is outright bigotry and hatred. Friday's was born here. Just because a few of their establishments are bad quality doesn't mean they all are. The one at the Monmouth Mall in Eatontown, N.J. is one of my favorites."

Catholic priest Kyle Notreala, of St. Peter's Church, which is a few blocks away, agreed.

"I think they need to establish a place such as this for people from Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths to come together," Notreala said.

"Because after this," he added, "We could all use a few drinks."


-------------------------------------
For a more serious article on the Ground Zero mosque, click here.

Also, this great rebuttal on Slate.

Stop The Madness


Stop Comparing The First Black President To Hitler, Please

Nazi Health Care Plan: Unless you're white, blonde haired, blue eyed and Christian, you're sent to a death camp, where you'll be told to take a shower. The shower will actually be toxic gas. You will be killed.

Obama's Health Care Plan: If you have health insurance, good for you. If you don't have health insurance, you'll be covered by the government's health insurance plan, which is good enough for most of the world's developed countries.

Now, these health care plans don't seem too similar. One involves Zyklon B and Nazi soldiers forcing emaciated Jews to dig trenches for their own soon-to-be-shot bodies. The other makes sure that if you get sick, you can be treated at a hospital and not worry about medical bills forcing you into bankruptcy. One aims to clear Europe of 10 million people... the other aims to provide free health care to 50 million people currently too poor to afford annual checkups. We're not exactly comparing apples to apples here, or even apples to oranges. This is more like apples to ostriches.

Yet, Obama's health care plan has resulted in this reaction:

Woman yells "Zeig Heil!" at Obama Heath Care supporter:


And this...



And this...


Courtesy of Glenn Beck

And this...

"This notion is fully in the spirit of the partisans of efficiency but came from a program instituted in Hitler's Germany called Aktion T-4. Under this program, elderly people with incurable diseases, young children who were critically disabled, and others who were deemed non-productive, were euthanized. This was the Nazi version of efficiency, a pitiless expulsion of the "unproductive" members of society in the most expeditious way possible."

And finally, this...



Look, I realize "liberals" got carried away too, when Bush was in charge. I'm pretty sure more than a few Nazi references were thrown towards the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay. But in those cases, we were talking about the government creating secret "camps" where people of a certain religion were being sent without trial to be tortured, and surveillance of citizens' lives without a warrant. The Nazi comparisons, however overblown, were at least apt.

But comparing a program designed to save millions of lower income or unemployed Americans from a lifetime of traumatic health issues to a program designed to slaughter innocent people? Comparing government provided health insurance to genocide? Painting a Hitler mustache on a poster of Obama? Yelling Zeig Heil, the Nazi salute (while apparently wearing an Israeli Defense Forces T-Shirt)!?! Have these people gone nuts?!?!?!

There are no death panels. And even if you horribly misinterpreted the end of life counseling provision in the bill, guess what? It's been erased. This is simple, people. If you have health insurance, great, you're good. Sit back and relax. If you don't, now you do. And it may not be perfect (those breast implants will still cost you), but its a damn sight better than what you have now. Which is nothing.

And if you're one of those people who worries about the pennies being taken from your paycheck, consider this. Those pennies are nothing compared to the billions the government already spends on healthcare (and already taxes you for)... money they have to spend because uninsured people never go to the doctor, so their minor ailments become major ones, and then their care ends up costing ten times more than what it would have. Most of the world's been having free health care for years, and they haven't collapsed. The for-profit system benefits huge insurance companies... and if you want to see how, just watch John Grisham's The Rainmaker for crying out loud. I'm not expecting you to watch Michael Moore's Sicko. Frankly, that guy freaks me out too.

So save the Nazi talk for Quentin Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds. And start getting on board Obama's plan to save you money and save 50 million people.

White House Keg Party To Serve Bud Light, Red Stripe, Blue Moon



By President Barack Obama, Guest Blogger

My fellow Americans. I am writing to you today to talk about an important issue in our country, one that too often goes ignored in our society. For too long, our United States have been divided. While Americans in generation after generation did their part to end these divisions, the recent events involving a police officer and African-American professor in Massachusetts have shown that we still have a way to go. My hope is that tomorrow, we can continue to blur the lines that divide us. My hope is that tomorrow, we will all have a chance to enjoy the taste of America freely, and without prejudice. My hope is that tomorrow, we can finally stop fighting about which kind is best: Red Stripe, Blue Moon, Bud Light, or Mike's Hard Cranberry Lemonade.

Professor Gates enjoys the Jamaican-brewed Red Stripe. Officer Crowley has expressed a preference for the Belgian-style white ale Blue Moon. Personally, I enjoy the simplicity and drinkability of a Bud Light. Mike's Hard Cranberry was Hillary's idea. But that is beside the point. Tomorrow afternoon I'm having a kegger at my place, and we're having beers from all corners of our nation and from throughout the world. Because we're in this together, and no matter what our tastes may be, we can all agree on one thing: Dick Cheney is terrible at beer pong, and I'll totally whip his butt.

The kegger will be held in the White House backyard, and food will be served. Buffalo wings, mozzarella sticks, potato skins, and Michelle's famous onion dip. Arrive early and stay late. You'll be required to go through security, but I've instructed the secret service to allow the entry of beer bongs, funnels, and those crazy looking beer helmets. Because as long as we get good and crunked, we won't care what beer we're drinking.

Beer pong sign ups start promptly at 6PM. House rules are one re-rack per game, and no bouncing. And absolutely, absolutely no blowing the ball out of the cup if you're a guy. I don't want to remind you again, Schumer.

In an effort to stop Biden from dominating the music again, we've hired the Black Eyed Peas. Gotta love that Boom Boom Pow.

It's been a tense two weeks for all involved in this controversial arrest drama, and we're all looking to unwind. So dress to impress and come on over. Cause this is one party on the hill that's definitely not just for old rich guys.

P.S. Don't tell GWB.

This Just In: Barack Obama Is An American

Need proof that the news media is really just a conduit for the ravings of madmen? Look no further than the non-story that is the non-existent debate over whether or not President Barack Obama was born in this country. If he wasn't, of course, that would make him ineligible to be President, like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sarah Palin.

The thing is though... Obama was born in Hawaii. Which, most schoolchildren ages 6 and up know is a state. This is a fact. It's been backed up by government records, a Honolulu Advertiser birth announcement on the day Obama came into this world, and Obama's family and friends. It's a fact like, "the ocean is wet," or "the New York Mets are a blooper reel that never ends." 2 + 2 = 4

Yet, strangely enough, all the major cable news networks have had segments this week giving voice to "Birthers," a group which believes Obama was born outside the country, possibly in some terrorist training camp (Fox, of course, being the worst offender). Make no mistake, these Birthers are racists. Many of them are the same people who believe the concentration camps were really health spas for Jews, and that our southern border should be turned into a river of hellfire from which no Mexican can ever escape. Their view on Obama's citizenship is indefensible: they can provide no proof that their insane ravings are the truth, only wild speculation and statements like "Sumthin' 'ere just don' feel right." The only proof they have is a ideological belief that Democrats are made of tiny communist nano-robots who will soon divide and swarm middle America, swallowing precious supplies of corn and wheat, leaving behind fields full of abortion doctors. There is no reason any of these crazies should ever be on TV. Except cable news ratings, apparently.

I've already urged a total media blackout of Sarah Palin... can we just quit entertaining racist conspiracy theories too? Honestly, Fox, we get that you're Republica...er... fair and balanced... but does that really mean you need to give every KKK member a microphone?

From MSNBC:

[Hawaii] Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said she hoped to end lingering rumors about Obama's birthplace.

"I ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen," she said in a brief statement. "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago."

Ok, good, got it?

Will Bush Destroy The Country?

I know what you're thinking. Hasn't he already? Embroiled in a costly and stagnant war, with our economy on life support and a major city still as mangled as the day it was hit by a hurricane, our country is in deep trouble. But, sadly, it could get worse, and there's a good chance that president Bush will make it so, despite his limited time remaining in office.

Lost amid the hubbub over Obama's cabinet appointments has been a call by Obama and his newly-selected chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, for Bush to authorize a bailout plan for the auto industry. Bush has already helped out his pals on Wall Street, but so far, he's seemed reluctant to help an industry that is just as integral to the American economy's success. With unemployment already at a level not seen since just after 9/11, the economy cannot afford more job losses.

Time magazine reports:

It's now clear that GM can't survive as an ongoing entity without massive federal assistance. The company is burning through more than $2 billion each month. It has $16 billion left. As if they were aboard a dirigible losing altitude, GM's bosses have been frantically throwing all manner of stuff overboard — retiree health-care benefits, people, assets, new car design — to conserve $5 billion. That will get it through the year.

Furthermore:

The system — the domestic auto plants and their interconnected group of suppliers — is far bigger than GM. It includes 54 North American manufacturing plants and at least 4,000 so-called Tier 1 suppliers — firms that feed parts and subassemblies directly to those plants. That includes mom-and-pop outfits but also a dozen or so large companies such as Lear, Johnson Controls and GM's former captive Delphi. Beyond those are thousands of the suppliers' suppliers.

Although the Detroit Three directly employed about 240,000 people last year, according to the industry-allied Center for Automotive Research (CAR) in Ann Arbor, Mich., the multiplier effect is large, which is typical in manufacturing. Throw in the partsmakers and other suppliers, and you have an additional 974,000 jobs. Together, says CAR, these 1.2 million workers spend enough to keep 1.7 million more people employed. That gets you to 2.9 million jobs tied to the Detroit Three... Shut down Detroit, and the national unemployment rate heads toward 10% in a hurry.

We saw what happened when the government chose to let one big banking firm, Lehman Brothers, fail. The entire financial community fell down with it. Now it seems Bush is content to do the same with the auto industry. Except the workers laid off by this collapse won't be as well off as those let go by Wall Street.

So far, the President has offered only to speed through Congress an already approved $25 billion loan to help Detroit create new fuel-efficient models. But GM needs an additional $10 billion simply to pay its bills next year and $15 billion more to close plants, compensate redundant workers and dump some of its lesser-performing brands.

Bush was apparently angry that details of his conversation with Barack Obama were released to the press. One of those details was that Obama had urged him to support an auto-industy bailout. Of course, Bush had other ideas in mind...

The president stressed that his main priority for any postelection action out of Congress is approval of a long-stalled free trade agreement with Colombia. -Jennifer Loven, AP White House Correspondent

Yes, Bush is worried about Columbia, while Rome burns.

It may just be the cynic in me, but it seems to me that the Republicans have little to gain by supporting a bailout of the auto industry. They already took heat in this year's election for supporting the bailout of Wall Street. And by allowing GM and others to go under, they assure that Barack Obama begins his first year as President in a very, very deep hole that's nearly impossible to climb out from. By doing nothing, the Republicans can let Obama and a Democratic congress take the heat for a dead economy in the next election. Meanwhile, if they do approve a bailout and it fails, then the Republican base, already pissed at large government spending, will have all the incentive they need to vote their incumbents out of office.

Already, the Republicans are showing signs that they could care less about 2.9 million jobs.

AP - House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said Thursday he would oppose an auto industry bailout. "Spending billions of additional federal tax dollars with no promises to reform the root causes crippling automakers' competitiveness around the world is neither fair to taxpayers nor sound fiscal policy," Boehner said.

If Bush uses his veto power to kill a bailout bill, it's hard not to figure he's doing so in order to deliberately hurt the country for the immediate future, creating a toxic environment for the next party in charge.

Given what we've seen so far, I can't say I'd be surprised.

Finally Voting For A Winner



I can sleep well tonight knowing that finally, at long last, I've voted for the winning Presidential candidate.

My friend Jenny (Jenny Jo Journalista), who's covering the election for Columbia (School of Journalism) called me while in the crowd around the Apollo Theater in New York City. A madness of honking horns and joyful shouts. "Obama! Obama!" It was great to hear. I, on the other hand, enjoyed a quiet evening watching the results from the sleepy Republican suburbs of Monmouth County, NJ.

First the Giants win the Superbowl, now this. It's turning out to be a great year.

Japanese People Are Weird...

...but they love Obama:



So, yeah... go vote for him.

Courtesy of Clicked.

PLUS: Just in case you think Sarah Palin's qualified for Vice President:



Not sure what the dancing people have to do with anything, but it's pretty funny.

What's Wrong With This Picture??



Above is a screencap from the MSNBC site. It also highlights the reason I can't allow myself to get too optimistic about Obama winning this election in a landslide.

The AP poll actually says McCain has gained ground since the third and final debate. Read it and you'd think McCain's "Joe The Plumber" argument is making believers.

Then you read this NBC/WSJ poll, and Obama's up by ten points.

What's the truth? I find it so hard to believe--after 8 years of Republican mismanagement of the economy, the war, and just about everything else--that McCain will win. But then again, the logic of many Americans isn't always sound:



The screenshot above also provides a some reasons not to vote for McCain. The same man who claims Obama will be a "Tax and spender" has a running mate who's using $150,000 of public funds to add to her personal wardrobe. The economy, which McCain claimed was a-ok, is an empty shell hollowed out by the same corrupt businessmen McCain's such good pals with.

With the election right around the corner, Obama supporters can not afford to be overconfident. The New England Patriots were undefeated-- and lost the Super Bowl. The first season of Heroes was great-- until the season finale. Just because things may look rosy for an outsider seeking to upend an inept ruling party doesn't mean Obama's got it sewn up just yet. The AP poll should remind us of this.

Black Power



Interesting story on the BBC about the man who shared the Olympic medal podium with United States' sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos at the 1968 Summer Olympics, where the two Americans infamously made their "Black Panthers" salute protest. For his support of the two athletes, Australian Peter Norman was ostracized from the sport he loved.

Matt Norman, his nephew, created a documentary about the moment that changed the three men forever, Salute.

Its incredible how far we've come from that moment in history. Back then, the athletes were vilified for daring to protest against an American establishment which had yet to treat African-Americans as equal.

It took until 2008, 40 years later, but we finally have an major-party African-American nominee for President.

We should all learn a lesson from Peter Norman, someone who took on an unpopular position because it was the moral, right thing to do. People like that end up heroes... just not until many years later, when the rest of the world has caught up.

When I first heard the pundits talk about a so-called "Bradley effect," in which Obama may lose votes simply because of his skin color, I shook my head. It's 2008-- you've got hicks in Arkansas listening to Jay-Z-- how can people still be racists? Even subconscious ones? To me, it's like believing the world is flat or that the moon is made of cheese. Someone's a lesser person because they've got more pigment in their skin? Does that mean people with a lot of freckles are inferior? Come on...

But reading a story like this reminds me that those people over 40, who still hold the keys to this country, lived in a time when a white person supporting civil rights risked their reputation and livelihood. They lived in a time where a black man could be a hero while running around a track (or on a football field), but couldn't get a seat at a restaurant. I'd hope that since 1968, people have caught up with Peter, and are able to see Obama as a candidate, not as a color.

I suspect they have. It's about time that the color of a man doesn't disqualify him from the Presidency.

Next up, Jews?

Hillary Just Slammed It Out Of The Park, Didn't She

"No way, no how, no McCain," Hillary declared, loudly, in her speech at the Democratic National Convention tonight. If only the Yankees could be so clutch (big Boston loss tonight).

"John McCain says the economy is fundamentally sound. He doesn't think 47 million Americans without health insurance is a crisis. He wants to privatize social security. And, in 2008 John McCain still believes its okay if women receive less pay for equal work. It makes sense that John McCain and George Bush will be together in the Twin Cities this week. Because these days, its getting awfully hard to tell them apart!!!"

Go Git Him Hillary!!!

Watch the Speech here. My favorite part (other than quoted above)? When she thanks her "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits."

She came out pretty damn strong for Obama. Pretty hard to see how anyone who legitimately was her supporter to not follow her lead and join the Obamawagon.

I mean, you really want to vote for McCain? The guy doesn't know how many houses he owns and probably smells like mothballs.

Say It Ain't So Hillary

Hillary Clinton makes it awfully hard to support her campaign when she makes statements like this:



Now, in her defense, she's merely quoting what an AP report found. But why couldn't she just have said, "The AP says that I'm more popular with working class Americans." Why'd she have to say "white Americans"? Why'd she have to go into demographic detail at all?

By making the argument that she's more popular with white people (uneducated white people, for that matter), Hillary basically goes against dozens of years of Democratic Party logic, which strives to encompass minority groups in securing a victory against the largely racist, xenophobic and homophobic Republican party. Now she's saying... "Screw Obama's support from minorities-- I've got the whites! And we all know they're the real ones that matter."

That may not have been the message Hillary was aiming to send. But that's what people heard. And as a white man, I'm disgusted. I don't think any leader of any political party should think in terms of racial lines. And I certainly don't think any candidate should tout their overwhelming support from uneducated white people. A President of this nation should represent all people equally, no matter their skin color. Instead of proudly proclaiming how popular she was with the redneck set, Hillary should have simply stuck to touting her popularity in large states, and battleground states like Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania, which could be key to this year's elections. That's her strongest argument, I believe.

Just listen to how she stumbles over the word "white," twice. She's clearly not comfortable even saying it. I chalk this up to a horrible advisor, giving her some really bad direction. That troubles me, because Hillary is smart enough to not go for that.

I've been pro-Hillary, but as the media makes out her campaign to be more and more desperate (even though the delegate split is tiny), she seems to be coming a bit unravelled. And it's unfortunate, because we shouldn't choose our Presidential candidate based on the campaign missteps or flubbed lines. It should be about who has the best ideas, and the best track record of implementing, or attempting to implement those ideas. Obama has yet to thrill me with any ideas of substance. And name me one thing he's actually done during his time in the senate, other than campaigning for President?

But at least he hasn't offended me, like Hillary has now.

Another big argument going for her was that she's been in the White House before. And not just as some Laura Bush-style walking-talking-photo-op. She has experience "under fire." Not sniper fire, as she erroneously claimed, but fire from Republicans. She's withstood it well. The Whitewater scandal washed out. Her health care plan was destroyed, but she remained dedicated to finding a solution. She's actually attempted to do things, even when a Republican legislature made those things impossible.

Obama? Well, he likes the word "change" as much as Bush likes the words "hard work." I'm not a fan of words. I'm a fan of actions.

But, as I said, Hillary keeps making it harder to defend her. By scrapping for every vote, she's compromised some of her ideals, making more and more statements that appeal to the segment of the populace that hasn't already decided for Obama. And this just makes her even less attractive to the typical Obama voter, who still actually believes there are politicians that can turn America into a Utopian candyland, full of bunnies and sunshine. Obama, luckily for him, has not had to make such concessions.

Yet.

When the election versus McCain comes, and he finds himself trailing in the polls, desperate for some of that Hillary-segment of the Democratic party, he will undoubtedly have to make some of the same, pandering statements as she did.

When you're in front, you can be everyone's messiah. But I fear, when the general election comes, Obama's youthful idealism will not be enough to take the election from the battle-tested McCain and the Republican fear-mongering machine.

I believe Hillary can. She has before.

And I, for one, cannot withstand another 4-8 years of Republican rule.

And We're Back

Sorry for the lack of recent posts. It's been a busy time in Adam's Life. Between my coverage of the Tribeca Film Festival for work, a new article for MSN.com, and the recent, mind-blowing news that I've been chosen as Best Man for my best friend's wedding, I've been slacking on my blogging duties. To you, loyal and frustrated reader, I apologize.

So let's get to it.

I'm still in the Hillary corner personally, but don't you suspect she's disgusted with herself at how ugly she let this campaign become?

Once the shining star of a powerful, respected Democratic party, she now finds herself fighting for position in a spring break KY-wrestling match. Obama vs. Hillary!! Drink specials all night!!

The saddest thing is, at no other time in American history has the media focused so heavily on one political party for so long in the months leading up to an election. It's almost as if Republicans don't exist, other than a few lost souls wandering the halls of the White House. And instead of using that media attention to promote their platform, the democrats instead are shining a spotlight on internal divisions, campaign mismanagement, and extreme wackos like Reverend Wright.

If only Hillary and Obama had led civil campaigns, we'd be hearing about how the Republicans bungled the war, and continue to bungle the war. We'd be hearing about how 8 years of Republican leadership has left our economy on the brink of ruin. We'd be hearing about how Senator McCain sold his soul to the radical right, and plans to continue the misguided policies of Bush II. But instead, we hear about a screaming black preacher, imaginary snipers, racist blue collar workers. It's a damn shame.

McCain loves America-bashing preachers as well, Frank Rich of the New York Times points out. But McCain is not under the microscope. Not yet. The Democratic party is, and will continue to be for as long as this drama continues. And if the slides being magnified are dirty with the muck and mire of two squabbling contenders, you can bet the American voting public will see it. Wouldn't the Democratic party be better served by TWO candidates going after the ONE Republican nominee? Instead of ripping each other's throats out? And Obama fans, don't be so quick to blame Hillary either. Snipergate stole at least a week's worth of headlines that could have been about glaring Republican failures. I get that they can't agree to be President and Vice President. No one wants the consolation prize. But can't they at least agree to support one another against the Manchurian Candidate?

Everyone's all up on Obama, even despite the racist attempts to link him with a loony. But this race is a lot closer than some pundits would have you believe. And when one of the candidates loses, the other one doesn't necessarily win. As hard as it is to believe that an Obama backer could suddenly go against everything Obama stands for and vote for McCain, that's exactly what polls show if Hillary wins the race. That begs the question, Does the Democratic party want a candidate who's supporters would rather vote for the enemy than a fellow party member? How loyal are those Democrats?

It's not looking good for the party of light and hope... something I never thought could happen just a few short months ago. And that means it's not looking good for America. There may be people who still believe McCain is a maverick moderate, but clearly they haven't been watching how McCain's changed since his handlers said the code word, activated McCain's implant and turned him into a robot for the elephant party line. If McCain actually believes what he says (war is good! give the rich tax breaks!) then he may just be more incompetent than George W. Bush, who at least has an excuse. A lot of cocaine use.

Hopefully, the primaries today will cause one or both of the candidates to realize they're not getting anywhere by playing a game of division. Only by rallying their supporters around the party, and not themselves, can either of the candidates hope to reclaim this country from the crooks and liars who've owned it the past 8 years.

Ah, kickin it off with a patented Adam's Life rant. It's been a while.

Obama Bomba



Is Barack Obama crazier than Bush? No. But he does have a crazy idea: Send troops into Pakistan to hunt terrorists without Pakistani permission.

Sure. Invade a Muslim country that has never attacked us in order to stop terrorism. Why does that some vaguely familiar? The bonus is, Pakistan is a nuclear power. And it's about one presidential assassination away from becoming an insane warlord-led terror state like neighboring Afghanistan.

Obama's statement may have just pushed me toward Hillary and Edwards. At least they haven't been so bold to suggest initiating a nuclear war. Yet.

Just When You Thought Jesus Was Safe...



... Here Comes "Obama Christ"

I have to say, the Chocolate Jesus had better taste.


Get it? Taste?

Oh I crack myself up.