the birth certificate

If you haven't taken a look at it, you can do so here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

Direct from the White House's official page, so you know I'm not feeding you the wrong one.

As soon as you look at this thing, you know something's up with it. Its obviously crafted in photoshop. You can see the edge of what would be the "real" paper form on all four sides, but most obviously on the left. There it is bowed upwards as though bound into a book and placed on a photocopier. But if that is the case, how does it mesh seamlessly with the official birth certificate background pattern?

I investigated. I opened up the .pdf file with photoshop and.... care to guess at what I found?

Layers.

Lots of layers.

For those unfamiliar with photoshop, a large part of the "magic" of the program in being able to make almost anything possible is the ability to "layer" a piece of image material over another. Often images that you see on the internet were meshed together with several layers before being saved into the image file format that you end up seeing.

Proof? Someone posted a video of them playing with the layers in photoshop. This is a hand-crafted fake birth certificate. Take a look.

Don't get me wrong. I think he's as American as you and me- he walks, talks, acts like an American. Why the hell does he need to have a fake birth certificate created when he can just get a copy of a real one? Something doesn't add up.

state of the union

As a contrast to our current President, I'm quoting from Reagan's 1982 State of the Union address. Any emphasis on the text is added by me.

When I visited this chamber last year as a newcomer to Washington, critical of past policies which I believe had failed, I proposed a new spirit of partnership between this Congress and this Administration and between Washington and our state and local governments.

It's my duty to report to you tonight on the progress that we have made in our relations with other nations, on the foundation we've carefully laid for our economic recovery and, finally, on a bold and spirited initiative that I believe can change the face of American government and make it again the servant of the people.


To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous.


The last decade has seen a series of recessions. There was a recession in 1970, in 1974, and again in the spring of 1980. Each time, unemployment increased and inflation soon turned up again. We coined the word "stagflation" to describe this.

Government's response to these recessions was to pump up the money supply and increase spending.

In the last six months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history 13 percent. Inflation remained in double digits and Government spending increased at an annual rate of 17 percent. Interest rates reached a staggering 21 1/2 percent. There were eight million unemployed.


Late in 1981, we sank into the present recession largely because continued high interest rates hurt the auto industry and construction. And there was a drop in productivity and the already high unemployment increased.

This time, however, things are different. We have an economic program in place completely different from the artificial quick-fixes of the past. It calls for a reduction of the rate of increase in Government spending, and already that rate has been cut n early in half. But reduced spending alone isn't enough. We've just implemented the first and smallest phase of a three-year tax-rate reduction designed to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

Already interest rates are down to 15 3/4 percent, but they must still go lower. Inflation is down from 12.4 percent to 8.9, and for the month of December it was running at an annualized rate of 5.2 percent.

If we had not acted as we did, things would be far worse for all Americans than they are today. Inflation, taxes and interest rates would all be higher.

Together, we not only cut the increase in Government spending nearly in half, we brought about the largest tax reductions and the most sweeping changes in our tax structure since the beginning of this century. And because we indexed future taxes to the rate of inflation, we took away Government's built-in profit on inflation and its hidden incentive to grow larger at the expense of American workers.

Together, after 50 years of taking power away from the hands of the people in their states and local communities we have started returning power and resources to them.


Together, we have cut the growth of new Federal regulations nearly in half. In 1981, there were 23,000 fewer pages in the Federal Register, which lists new regulations, than there were in 1980.

Together, we have created an effective Federal strike force to combat waste and fraud in Government. In just six months it has saved the taxpayers more than $2 billion, and it's only getting started.
 
Together, we've begun to mobilize the private sector not to duplicate wasteful and discredited Government programs but to bring thousands of Americans into a volunteer effort to help solve many of America's social problems.

Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting under way, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax, and spend and spend.
Because our economic problems are deeply rooted and will not respond to quick political fixes, we must stick to our carefully integrated plan for recovery. And that plan is based on four common-sense fundamentals: continued reduction of the growth in Federal spending, preserving the individual and business tax deductions that will stimulate saving and investment, removing unnecessary Federal regulations to spark productivity and maintaining a healthy dollar and a stable monetary policy, the latter a responsibility of the Federal Reserve System.
 
The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment.

oh, those wacky fringe liberals.

Yahoo news has carried a blog post from Ted Rall, and a more frothing liberal I'd be hard pressed to find. Ordinarily, I'd completely ignore writing like this, but this one is really too good to pass up.

Obama is so far to the left, he pushed the American public into a voting storm that caused one of the biggest party gains in the history of the country.

But he's not nearly liberal enough for the fringe who got him elected. This guy accuses Obama of being just as much, if not more right wing, than W. Bush.

As my gaming friends like to say, "lol whut?"

Here's some choice bits out of Ted Rall's post.

Six days into the Obama presidency, I'd seen enough.


"Give the man a chance?" I asked on January 26, 2009. "Not me. I've sized up him, his advisors and their plans, and already found them sorely wanting. It won't take long, as Obama's failures prove the foolishness of Americans' blind trust in him. Obama isn't our FDR. He's our Mikhail Gorbachev: likeable, intelligent, well-meaning, and ultimately doomed by his insistence on being reasonable during unreasonable times."

That last one is really telling. This guy thinks that Obama has been "reasonable" pushing through all of his socialistic agenda. And, what's more, he wanted Obama to be unreasonable.

Wow.

We may have changed. But Obama hasn't. It was obvious from the beginning that Mr. Hopey Changey was devoid of character, deploying a toxic blend of liberal rhetoric and right-wing realpolitik.

I think that speaks for itself really. Head on over there and read through the article if you want to take a peek into the mind of a far, far fringe liberal.

"looming" poison vote

The Christian Science Monitor has an article (here) talking about a "looming" vote for the freshmen Republican representatives, even though the vote is "months away". The vote I'm speaking of is the raising of the national debt limit, currently hovering just below $14.3 trillion.

I imagine we can expect to see a significant build up to this story in the months to come, because it raises some very serious issues that are described as being very complicated by the author of the article and experts quoted in the article.

Now, [the freshman Republicans] face the other side of the issue: A vote against raising the debt limit means the government could run out of money. Will fiscal responsibility look so appealing if the government essentially shuts down?

Excuse me, Gail Russel Chaddock, author of the article, but did you just say that the federal government of the United States of America cannot function without going into debt? Just what kind of fiscal children do we have running the country if running the government without running up debt is automatically treated as impossible by those who are accustomed to watching the politicians work?

GOP leaders hope to frame the debt vote in a broader context of rigorous budget cutting and enhanced oversight.

Translation: the GOP establishment is going to vote to increase the country's debt, is going to pressure the freshmen representatives to vote for increasing the country's debt, and the only thing left to do is minimize the political fallout resulting from the vote. This is an issue that nearly half of the freshmen Republicans ran against in their Tea Party funded campaigns, and many specifically attacked the Democrat incumbents on their voting record on this issue.

Voting to increase the national debt limit would be political suicide for these newly elected Tea Party candidates.

And you can be sure the media, both liberal and conservative, will be all over that story. They'll bite into it and shake it around like a dog after a successful hunt, and they won't stop once the story is dead, dead, dead- they'll chew it up and digest it before they let it lie.

We’re going to have to deal with it as adults. Whether we like it or not, the federal government has obligations, and we have obligations on our part.

Those are the words of the esteemed John Boehner, the current and future GOP House leader. I am dismayed - but not surprised - that he insinuates fiscal responsibility is a childish quality. He treats all "obligations" of the federal government as sacrosanct, even the ones that overreach constitutional federal authority, are over funded, or are in some other way identifiable as prime cut choices, ready to be stamped USDA Select pork.

It would look very negative to the rest of the world to not vote to increase the debt limit. We might have to be late on payments to government contractors. It would be chaotic. But having such huge debts is very negative, too.

You're very right, Congressman Ron Paul. It would be chaotic to not follow the same procedures the government has been following. What you need to understand, sir, is that "having such huge debts" is much more negative than "look[ing] very negative to the rest of the world". And, really, how does having a ridiculously high national debt look positive to the rest of the world? Other than, perhaps, China, who would very much like to see the federal government indebted to it permanently?

Seriously, screw the rest of the world for now. We need to get our own House in order first.

But liberals like Stan Collender disagree.

It does make a difference if you don’t raise the debt ceiling: the government will run out of cash. Delaying payments to social security recipients or government contractors is a nonstarter. It’s the day we start to look like a third world country.

A "nonstarter"? I had to look up this term; I don't really speak "Washington insider" - I speak "American citizen". Merriam-Webster defines nonstarter as "someone or something that is not productive or effective". What is raising the debt ceiling effective at, other than kicking the can down the road and allowing out of control spending in Washington to continue?

How does the government automatically run out of cash if you don't raise the debt ceiling? I'll tell you: you don't simultaneously do the sensible thing and cut spending. Politicians and liberal "experts" like Collender aren't sensible. They live in a different culture, very far removed from normal citizens.

Washington needs to understand; maybe we do need to "look like a third world country" for a short time. We rocked the boat in the elections because the status quo needs to be shaken up. Politicians need to take this seriously, especially the ones who were voted into office to change the status quo.

Stop racking up astronomical debts with out of control spending. Stop destroying my country's future!

DON'T TREAD ON ME.

At a news conference in Seoul, our Dear Leader made the following comments:

It would be fiscally irresponsible for us to permanently extend the high-income tax cuts. I think that would be a mistake, particularly when we've got our Republican friends saying that their No. 1 priority is making sure that we deal with our debt and our deficit.

This isn't an eye opener, at least not anymore for me, but it sure is a great reminder of just where on the political spectrum our Comrade President preaches from.

ALL tax and economic experts that are politically unaffiliated will tell you that lower taxes leads to economic growth. All of them. And its not just an educated opinion- its historical, mathematical fact. Taxes go down, productivity and revenue go up. Isn't that what the government is looking for? Its a very simple concept. You decrease the rate at which you take money from your citizens' pockets. They feel they now have a better chance to make more money, so they work harder, invest more deeply, and do all of the things that help an economy grow. And they make more money- which leads to increased tax dollars paid, even though its a lower percentage.

The second part of his statement is... Its hard for me to even make a comment on it. Read between the lines a little bit, however, and you can divine some very important information; what he's saying is Republicans care about the financial health of the government and the country, and that he, and liberals in general, do not. The phrase "deal with our debt" is very telling. He thinks that he can run the government and not "deal" with the debt and deficit? If you ignore the big bad monster, will it go away and leave you alone?

These comments reflect the epitome of liberal thinking: fanciful ideas with disastrous consequences.

"obama has a listening problem"

This article from the Wall Street Journal, written by Karl Rove, is so fantastic, it needs to be seen by more people.

Mr. Obama is in a pickle without an obvious path to winning back independents. After turning on him so decisively, they may well tell him, in the words of Ms. Bareilles: "You sound so innocent, all full of good intent/Swear you know best/But you expect me to jump up on board with you/Ride off into your delusional sunset . . . Who cares if you disagree, you are not me/Who made you king of anything?"

elitism doesn't work for politicians.

But President Obama and Vice President Biden didn't get that memo.

And still haven't.

By now, we should long be familiar with Obama's elitism (even though he's an empty Chicago suit) due to his openness about it. To wit:

They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I won't get into this rant again, even if being called a racist, ignorant, uneducated, armed religious freak goes way over the top, even for a politician.

People out there are still hurting very badly, and they are still scared. And so part of the reason that our politics seems so rough right now, and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared.

And I won't get into this one again, even though being called a lizard-brained, scared peasant goes way over the top, even for a politician.

If people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place.

I really enjoy this one. Oh yes, Fearless Leader, insult your base and see where that gets you. Even Joe Biden chimed in with his "stop whining" comment.

Now, in a 60 Minutes interview, Obama's made another winning comment. He says

[leadership is] a matter of persuading people. And giving them confidence and bringing them together. And setting a tone. And making an argument that people can understand.

What?

I know I shouldn't be surprised, but I just have to ask if I read that correctly.

Did I read that correctly?

Obama thinks that people have lost faith in him due to an inability to understand his arguments?

I do apologize, Dear Leader, for being an ignorant, undereducated, clinging-to-guns-and-religion country bumpkin (even though I live in a metropolitan area of California) who can't understand all those big words you string together in a vain attempt to educate me on your ideology. Please, dumb it down for me even more so that I can understand your grand design.

Get the hell out of our white house. Elitist socialistic liberal mindset plus Chicago windbag equals angry intelligent voters.

DON'T TREAD ON ME.