Team Obama is trying to give the true meaning of 9/11 a "makeover." I guess it's more of what Obama promised during the campaign about "transforming" America. You know, a little revisionist history never hurt anybody, right?

Plans for this were outlined in an August 11 White House-sponsored teleconference call conducted by Obama "associate" Lennox Yearwood, president of the Hip Hop Caucus, and Liv Havstad, the group's senior vice president of strategic partnerships and programs.

Yearwood, who uses the honorific "Reverend" before his name, has been in the news in recent years, often for getting arrested. After Democrats took back Congress in 2006, the "Reverend" was handcuffed outside a congressional hearing in September 2007, during General David Petraeus' testimony. Yearwood later said he wanted to attend the hearing to hear Petraeus give his report, because "I knew that when officers lie, soldiers die." Gee, that sounds like maybe Yearwood might have extensive experience as a soldier himself and would thus have some standing, and the understanding, to make such a comment. But, alas, no. However, he was an Air Force lieutenant (and avid anti-Iraq war protester) in the Individual Ready Reserve until his discharge in mid-August 2007.

So, hey, Lennie, you got a M. Divinity degree from Howard University in May 2002 but so far as I can tell are not an ordained minister, yet call yourself "Reverend" and wear a white collar, no less, which is sort of like me insisting on being addressed as "Doctor" because I have a Juris Doctorate degree. And you're an activist who tried to jump the line waiting to get into a congressional hearing in 2007 and got yourself arrested instead of being allowed into the meeting you wanted to disrupt, er, attend. And you want to imply that whenever a distinguished Army general and authentic American hero is talking he may be lying and that is causing soldiers to die? What a presumptuous, self-important, radical, big-mouthed idiot you must be! But, of course, you're supposedly some kind of friend of Obama's (as well as P. Diddy's -- or whatever he's calling himself this week), so I guess that makes you good-to-go and gives you all the "creds" you need, huh?

However, one must stop and ask, just as the issue was raised during the campaign about Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko and many others (but never pursued by the liberal lamestream media), what kind of people is Obama (and this White House) choosing to associate with? And don't such associations say at least as much -- maybe even more, really -- about Obama the man and the politician as does his stage-managed presidential "pressers" and his other telepromptered pontifications and pronouncements? Just askin' - just sayin'.

And who were those other leaders on the conference call with Yearwood? Well, it was a coalition including the radically left-wing pressure group Color of Change and other far-left, environmentalist, labor and corporate shakedown groups, including: ACORN, AFL-CIO, Apollo Alliance, Community Action Partnership, Deep South Center for Environmental Justice, 80 Million Strong for Young American Jobs, Friends of the Earth, Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, Mobilize.org, National Black Police Association, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, National Council of N-gro Women, National Wildlife Federation, RainbowPUSH Coalition, Urban League, and Young Democrats of America.

Gosh, how did two other Obama-favored special interest groups, the SEIU and UAW unions, get left out of that conference call? Oh, maybe the SEIU purple T-shirted thugs were out trying to intimidate some honest citizens at another town hall meeting that day and the UAW was as busy as ever running General Motors into the ground. So, as Dana Carvey's Church Lady used to say on SNL, "N-e-v-e-r m-i-n-d."  

Color of Change is an extremist racial grievance group that isn't happy with FNC's Glenn Beck for "outing" Van Jones, the former jailbird and self-described "communist" and "rowdy black nationalist" who became Obama's so-called green jobs czar after jumping on the environmentalist bandwagon. (Hmmm, more radical left associations.) Color of Change recently called for a boycott of Beck's sponsors (let's hear it for free speech!), probably at least with the White House's blessing, if not its collusion. However, their attempt to destroy Beck by convincing advertisers to stop buying time on his show has backfired because, although some sponsors did withdraw from Beck's show and/or equivocated about advertising on Fox but not specifically with Beck, it appears none canceled their ads with Fox in general and plenty of others have filled the void and signed up as Beck sponsors -- and Beck's already impressive ratings, especially for a 5PM show, have skyrocketed even more. It's like a few months ago when the DNC and Democrats in general tried to demonize Rush Limbaugh as the "head" of the Republican Party who wanted Obama to fail, and Rush's already incredibly large audience got even bigger.

By the way, Jones was also a founder and previously on the board of the Appollo Alliance, a hard-left environmentalist group that is now literally running parts of the Obama administration. So, had you ever even heard of them before? Me neither, but they're running part of the federal government now, it seems. As also recently reported by -- guess who? -- Glenn Beck (well, you didn't think it was the liberal lamestream media, did you?), the Appollo Alliance has not only acknowledged but actually bragged that it dictated parts of the February stimulus bill to Congress.

Uhhhhh, can we all say, "WAIT A DAMN MINUTE, HERE!"?

A far-left alliance I had never even HEARD of before, composed of a bunch of people I don't know and who certainly weren't VOTED FOR or ELECTED by anybody, not only INFLUENCED (as in special interest groups -- you know, those people Obama said would have no place in his administration?) the so-called $787 billion stimulus plan, which has failed to stimulate much of anything, except more debate over massive waste of taxpayer money, but also literally DICTATED large parts of the actual legislative language to members of Congress? WOW! Just think about that for a minute. Couple that with Obama creating a shadow government of his own by appointing about 40 plus or minus "czars," whose pay and powers are unknown, many of whom have no qualifications for their positions and some of whom have criminal and/or radical leftist backgrounds, and one has to wonder: WHO IS REALLY RUNNING OUR GOVERNMENT? Do "We the People" even know? Is it even "our" government anymore? It doesn't look like it. 

With the help of the Obama administration, the August 11 conference call coalition of far-leftist loons is launching a public relations campaign under the radar of the mainstream media -- which doesn't appear to be too hard to do nowadays, since their "radar" is basically turned off and they seem collectively too cowardly to criticize our first black president, not because he's right but just because he's black. What spineless so-called
"watchdogs" of the government!

The public relations campaign will try to change 9/11 from a day of reflection and remembrance to a day of activism, food banks, community gardens, environmentalism and green, green, GREEN. C'mon, all together now, say, "La-la. La-la-la." The conference call insider source said, "They think it needs to be taken back from the right." "They're taking that day and they're breaking it because it gives Republicans an advantage. To them, that day is a fearful day." (Italics added.)

Taken back from the right? Why, because it's the right which still wants to fight, and win, the "global war on terror," rather than engage in vague and limp-wristed sounding "overseas contingency operations"?

It gives Republicans an advantage? Why, because there are real historical and traditional reasons that the maxim "Republicans are better and stronger on national defense and national security than Democrats" is a maxim? That is, because maxims are truisms?

That day is a fearful day? Well, finally, they got one out of three right. Yes, 9/11 was a fearful day -- and it should remain so in our annual collective memory, and a day of anger as well. It is not a GREEN day! And no amount of leftist, revisionist radicals has any right to try and remake it into any other kind of day than it is. It is a BLACK day! And one we should never forget. Just as March 6, 1836, when Santa Anna's thousands of Mexican soldiers finally overran the Alamo and killed all of its less than 200 brave defenders, was a black day. Just as December 7, 1941, when the Imperial Japanese Forces bombed Pearl Harbor, was a black day.

And screw Obama's hip-hop, greenie revisionists.

No less than the liberal fish wrap rag New York Times has reported that seven months into his presidency and Obama has 43 percent of the top policy-making jobs requiring Senate approval still empty, including such positions as Secretary of the Army and Director of the Agency for International Development.

Meanwhile, he has, so far at least, appointed going on 40-something so-called "czars," (a) which are at best extra-constitutional, if not unconstitutional, positions; (b) many of which duplicate existing cabinet secretarial and other federal government positions; and (c) many of which are being filled with Obama loyalists who possess what may be charitably called  "questionable" credentials, either with backgrounds totally unrelated to the czar position they're given or, in at least one case so far, the outright criminal background of a self-avowed communist.

I guess it is easier, though, and perhaps more "distracting" to those of us in the great unwashed masses out here in the hinterland, to simply appoint approximately a czar a week (oh, it's Friday, so what new czar do we have this week?), to not only give the illusion that you are doing something to solve problems but to also accomplish political payback and establish a "shadow government of czars" (a) whose salaries are unknown, (b) whose staff sizes and salaries are unknown, (c) most of whom until you appointed them were also unknown, (d) some of whom even though you have appointed them are still unknown, (e) and who are loyal only to you and not even accountable to the Congress. That's all easier, as well as more showy, than contending with that pesky and contentious ole Senate and working to get 43 percent of the policy-making positions which are actually authorized in the federal government expeditiously vetted (remember vetting?) and filled.  

And while the czar issue is both growing and ongoing, that's not all the manipulative misdirection our presidential prestidigitator and his administration henchmen offer us. The most recent is the CIA thing -- again -- and it's not just to appease their left-wing nutjobs, either. They're also doing it now as another distraction, to "change the conversation."

It came out late Friday (of course, Friday -- that's the end of the regular weekly news cycle when the White House usually dumps bad news) that Team Obama had "underestimated" the debt they've stuck us and future generations with in just over six months and it's going to be NINE TRILLION instead of the "paltry" SEVEN TRILLION that was previously announced. Of course, with the way Obama and this Congress spend money we not only don't have but also may not have even printed yet, I guess a couple of TRILLION is more or less just a "rounding error" so far as they're concerned.

Also, ObamaCare is taking a beating not only in town halls across the country but also in the latest polls, and so are Obama's ratings, so they want to change the topic to something else, perhaps almost anything, for those reasons as well.

Any time Obama gets really pressed about something he doesn't want to talk about or gets caught in another, shall we say, exaggeration (AARP backs ObamaCare -- uh, next day, no they don't), he shifts the conversation rather than answer the question, and so do his henchmen by repeating talking points instead of answering what they're asked about. Good lawyers do that. Good debaters do that. And weasely politicians do that, and, in that regard, Obama represents a trifecta -- smooth-talking lawyer, skillful debater, and ....

Besides, raising the CIA investigation issue again now also lets Obama play good cop to Attorney General Eric "Americans are cowards about race" Holder's bad cop by repeating that he only wants to look forward but it's Holder who wants to drag up investigating the CIA again, and blah, blah, blah. In D.C., that's what's politely called being disingenuous. In other parts of the country, it's called what it is: lying.

Obama may be in over his head and be too inexperienced to really know what he's doing, as some of us worried he would be, but one thing you can count on: he is a skilled politician and whatever he does do is carefully calculated, if lately at least not that well calibrated, in terms of trying to shape public opinion.

We'll see what kind of a president he turns out to be, but, make no mistake, he already is a calculating and cunning Chicago-style politician who will throw anybody he has to under the bus and who will say just about anything he thinks people will swallow. And, sadly, the liberal lamestream media and many of the people who joined his cult of personality and voted for him are not only still swallowing but also still gladly gulping down his faux "facts" and empty rhetoric. However, I myself have by now developed a pretty strong gag reflex.

After Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett was alerted last week by some of his viewers that they had received unsolicited emails from the WH, Garrett asked WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about it on Thursday, raising privacy issues. (As it happens, Garrett was later joined by the ACLU, of all groups. Who would have thought the very liberal ACLU and rather conservative Fox News would be on the same side of an issue? Go figure).

Gibbs gave one of his somewhat snarky and arrogant NON-answers and then basically stonewalled Garrett for the next few days as Garrett pursued trying to find out how the WH obtained people's private email addresses and why it was sending them unsolicited emails, mainly about ObamaCare.

Now, finally, the White House has provided its version of what happened. Politico.com's Mike Allen reports that WH spokesman Nick Shapiro said in a statement Sunday night: “We are implementing measures to make subscribing to emails clearer, including preventing advocacy organizations from signing people up to our lists without their permission when they deliver petition signatures and other messages on individual's behalf.” (Italics added for emphasis.)

So, the issue was raised on Thursday and surely could have been answered by someone by sometime Friday but the answer wasn't provided until late Sunday night. Talk about being able to claim credit for finally responding while at the same time trying to bury your answer out of the normal news cycle!

And did you notice that, once again, it's not the White House's fault? Heaven forbid that this White House should ever admit it made a mistake, much less actually and intentionally did something wrong. No, no, no, this time people's private email addresses were obviously but inadvertently obtained by the WH because, while these people didn't specifically opt in to receiving WH emails, they had apparently signed some kind of petition, letter, etc., etc., at some time or other, which some third party organizations (vague and kind of hard to trace, eh?) sent to the WH. So, it was these appropriately amorphous third party organizations' fault, you see -- NOT US! (What kind of ether do these people breathe -- and do they think if they pump enough of it into the news cycle that we will inhale it, too?)

Awww, now see, here I thought I was so "special" because I got three -- yes, THREE -- unsolicited emails from the WH, one from Obama and two from Axelrod. I was just SURE that I had earned a place on SOME kind of WH "enemies" list. Oh darn! Well, guess I'll just have to keep trying.

Just as I can't get over Axelrod's appearance somehow reminding me of a door-to-door salesman of some kind (Fuller brushes? Electrolux vacuums?), Gibbs reminds me of the overly large, overly self-important, overly privileged and overly boorish frat boy I sometimes ran across during my college days. You know the guy -- his daddy made sure he got into the right school and the right fraternity, had the right kind of clothes, the right kind of car and plenty of money, etc., but his daddy couldn't disguise the fact that his little boy wasn't quite as smart as he was arrogant and wasn't quite as polished as he was just plain used to being privileged and pampered.

You may also remember that the WH recently asked Americans to notify it of any "fishy" info, mainly pertaining to health care/insurance reform, that their family, friends or neighbors might casually mention or repeat. Well, the only thing "fishy" to me about the WH explanation of this latest apparent disregard for citizen privacy is that most of the organizations for and with which I've signed petitions, letters, etc., have specifically (in accordance with privacy and anti-spamming laws) stated that your email address may be requested for purposes of notifying you that your petition has been sent or for sending a copy of your letter back to you, etc., but that it will not be published or released to anyone else.

So, how do you explain that, Mr. White House Spokesperson? Anyone?

AFTERTHOUGHT: A poster named roxsteady claimed on Politico.com that Major Garrett and Fox News (I guess, along with the ACLU) were idiots for raising the question of the WH sending unsolicited emails to citizens and sought to excuse the WH by saying it is simply known as SPAM.

But isn't SPAM wrong, even illegal? Why, I think there are even LAWS.....and stuff.....against it. So, roxsteady, are you saying that Garrett, Fox News, etc., are idiots for even asking the questions, but the WH is okay for spamming its citizens, if in fact that's ALL it's doing?

Get a grip and stop excusing the Obama White House for everything. After all, normally AFTER they're CAUGHT, they do enough of that for themselves, usually by blaming someone -- and sometimes it seems, anyone -- else!

(Subtitle: Anybody else getting unsolicited emails from the White House lately?)

Well, I am evidently one of the "chosen ones." Within the last month or so, I have received an unsolicited email from Barack Obama and two unsolicited emails from his senior advisor David Axelrod. (I'm secretly waiting and hoping for a personal billet-doux from Rahm Emanuel next. That would give me a trifecta.)

The emails are individually and singly (not one in a multiple listing) addressed to my email address, greet me with the salutation of "Good Morning" or "Dear Friend" and have the WH logo at the top and the standard 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue address info across the bottom.

Now, I can assure you that they didn't get my email address from any of their campaign supporter lists or from any nice letter I've sent the White House lately, but I'm not going to be paranoid about where they did get it -- just curious. It is a little Big Brother-ish, though. 

So, it is just me being "targeted" because I'm already on Obama's "enemies list" and they're trying to persuade me to "come over," or have many -- any -- of you also received these emails? Are they sending them to some of us, or are they sending them to all of us? And if it's only some of us, how are those some being "chosen"?

I now know that at least some other people are receiving these, because Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett was recently alerted to it by some of his viewers and is now pursuing an answer from Obama's Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about how people are selected to receive them (and good luck to you with that, Major).

Finally, it all makes me wonder just how desperate the White House is to "get its message out." And why.        

WH Email #1
Subj: My Supreme Court Nominee  
Date: 7/14/2009 10:38:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Good Morning,
Subject: Nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor
From: Barack Obama

WH Email #2
Subj: It's time for a reality check  
Date: 8/10/2009 8:29:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Dear Friend,
Subject: The need for health care/insurance reform and sources to use for the "truth"
Encourages visiting the new www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck web site and helping to "spread the truth" to family, friends, etc.
From: David Axelrod

WH Email #3
Subj: Something worth forwarding  
Date: 8/13/2009 7:56:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time 
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov 
 
Salutation: Dear Friend,
Subject: 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about health insurance reform, and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now  
Encourages visiting www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck and forwarding email to friends, etc.
From: David Axelrod

[Subtitled: Ah, those delightfully doofus (and dangerously delusional) Democrats]

With angry constituents showing up in increasing numbers at Democrat (and some Republican) town hall meetings across the country and demanding to be heard about their growing dissatisfaction with a host of Obama Administration and Congressional issues, rather than just being passively preached to about the Democrat talking points gospel of Obamacare, the Democrat so-called "leadership" is going on the attack, or I should say, counter-attack. Herewith, some of their "reasoning."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, that crusty curmudgeonly princeling of the senate, grouses and grumps that town hall attendees are just trying to "sabotage" health care reform. Well, Harry, first of all, which of the at least five so-called health care/health insurance reform "plans" currently floating around in Congress do you think they're trying to sabotage? Or are you talking about what at least the House of Representatives (not your Senate, Harry) has voted on so far, the euphemistically named but seriously flawed and certainly far from final H.R. 3200, "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009"?

The fact is, when the prez or any of you talk about the prez's health care, uh, sorry, more recently renamed health insurance, reform "plan," there is no "plan" yet. At most what you have is about five differing versions of something embodying most of what are Obama's "goals" for health care/insurance reform. Goals ain't plans, Harry. (Example: Obama still has the goal of closing Guantanamo, but we've yet to see a plan -- even a workable cart-before-the-horse one -- to actually do that.) And once you do get it down into a single plan, with or without Republican participation, if that plan includes things like single payer and a massive government makeover/takeover of the best health care system in the world, especially without tort or insurance rate reform but with rationed care, especially for the elderly, and federal funding of abortions, then you're damn right there will be people at those town hall meetings trying to sabotage it. And I will be one of them.

Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA, says many town hall attendees are too well dressed to be "sincere." Is that because they're not wearing red ACORN or purple SEIU union T-shirts, Babs? From what I've seen, the people attending the town hall meetings are wearing everything from suits and ties to T-shirts and jeans. Most look like they came to the town hall meeting from work. Don't you try to dress well, Barbara? And aren't you sincere? Just askin'.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, who is both the princess of power in the House and the botox queen (wow, double royalty!), thinks she's seen people with swastikas at town hall meetings. Look out, the skinheads are invading our town hall meetings! Why, they're even crowding out some of our own paid, bussed-in union thugs! How about one person with a crossed-out swastika at one meeting, Miz Nancy? Oh my! But far be it from ME to accuse YOU of exaggerating something just to try and make a point. Or were "those swastikas" at a TEA Party protest, which Democrats also try to deny and decry? How does that work, exactly, where you deny something and then decry its existence? Of course Nance also has said the CIA lies to Congress but has yet to offer any proof of that, either. I guess just claims and allegations are enough nowadays. 

Back in April, President Obama, who as the president of the United States is someone who can have several someones find out anything he wants to know, any time he wants to know it, was dismissive of thousands of TEA Party protesters at hundreds of venues across the country, saying he didn't know what all that was about, except he saw someone waving a tea bag around. (Whattaya think now, Mistah Prez?)

Since then, various Dems and their lamestream media handmaidens have derided TEA Party protesters and denied their authenticity, yet decried their obviously growing numbers. So, lemme see now, (a) they're not authentic, (b) you don't understand what they're all about, but (c) you decry and disparage their activities anyway? And how come when Bush was prez, disruptive liberal "free speech" (read: shouting down any speaker with a conservative point of view) was a sign of "patriotism," but now concerned citizens gathering to demonstrate to their elected representatives their dissatisfaction with a runaway government is not only somehow "unpatriotic" but should also be "ignored"? Don't you have to be at least a little schizophrenic to do all that, all at the same time? Or is that just another example of Dems trying to have their cake and eating it too?

But, speaking of cake, Senator Richard Durbin, D-IL, seems to take the cake among all the Democrats lately. Senator Durbin seems to think the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy has been reactivated (if it ever was dormant, eh, Senator? -- nudge, nudge, wink, wink.) and that there is nothing authentic about the people or their anger at recent town hall meetings: They're all Republicans, or at least all conservatives. They're organized and funded by the GOP, or some other Obama-unapproved and unapproving special interest group. They're all bussed in just to disrupt the meetings and prevent a fair discussion of health care/health insurance reform. They're right-wing fringe nutjobs who don't really represent mainstream America. They just want to be disruptive and get on YouTube. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Hey, Dickey, I know you've been a senator for a long time, but either (a) you are desperately disconnected from what's going on in this country right now, (b) you are perniciously paranoid about what you do know is going on, or (c) you want us to think you're just little Dickey Durbin, Democrat from Illinois, and just really dumber than dirt. Either that, or you think we are.

Ann Coulter recently wrote about Kathleen Parker, the formerly alleged conservative columnist, going on MSNBC and other "fair and balanced" news shows and talking about being a real Southerner and that Southern resistance to Obama's massive and expensive health care/insurance reform is linked to racism rather than it being simply because it's a really, really bad idea.

I knew KP had gone off the tracks a couple of times during the campaign, and a couple more since then, and, shall we say, "strayed" from really being a conservative columnist, but claiming to be of and from the South when you're actually from Winter Haven, Florida, and just happened to marry a South Carolinian is like thinking Northern Virginia, where I live now, is also the South, when nothing north of Richmond even comes close. I'm from Georgia, and I KNOW what's Southern! It's in my DNA, even the Cherokee part.

So, as we say in the South, "bless her heart," KP first gave up her bona fides as a real conservative columnist and is now playing at being a real Southerner.

Well, KP, you don't speak for me, or any other real Southerner, about things Southern. And, bless your heart, please don't claim to be a conservative columnist while appearing on liberal lamestream media outlets and making liberal left-wing leaps of logic that simply objecting to what's just not a good idea has anything to do with racism. As we also say in the South, that dog just won't hunt, and you just sayin' so makes you look dumb in the bargain.

And also do please try to get over your obvious female version of "weiner" envy with Sarah Palin. It's, as we would say in our understated way in the South, a little bit more than just unbecomin'. It's becomin' downright embarrassin'.

Ben Stein's TV ad for a "free" credit product finally caught up to him. The New York Times, the once venerable newspaper but now fit only as the fish wrap rag of record, the purveyor of partisan politics and the publisher of national defense secrets, has fired Stein as a Sunday business columnist -- for violating ethics guidelines, no less.

Stein was criticized for his endorsement of a credit report bait-and-switch which offers a free credit score but charges an outrageous monthly fee to see the credit report behind the score, while under federal law consumers can get an online report free.

The NYT's real issue with Stein, though, so it says at least, is that he has violated its ethics policy, which states "it is an inherent conflict for a journalist to perform public relations work, paid or unpaid."

Well, it's nice to know that the Times even has an ethics policy, something which some would say must be at least situationally applicable and sometimes subject to plausible deniability. But what's really ironic about all this is that this is the newspaper whose journalistic standards permit making up stories out of whole cloth, whose "journalists" often offer opinion, without source attribution or substantiating facts, above the fold on the front page, whose "fact-checkers" are about as alert as some metro rail operators in various parts of the country unfortunately have been lately, whose readership is (predictably) plummeting and whose stock value is, shall we charitably say, waning?

So, if not ethically unacceptable, isn't it at least journalistically unacceptable for the NYT's "journalists" to accept pay without really acting like, uh, real journalists? Oh, the irony! Well, as the old, bearded wise man, in his solitary cave high up in the mountains, once told me, "Karma is as karma does."

I attended a TEA Party organizing meeting this past week.

By the way, I write TEA Party, instead of just tea party, because TEA is an acronym standing for the core idea of "Taxed Enough Already," whereas a tea party is presumably where tea may be served. That is, unless you're talking about "teabagging" and that kind of "tea party." [You see, snide comments in April by some cable news, and other, TV network nitwits and nincompoops labeling TEA Party protesters as "teabaggers" (snigger, snigger, snork, snork, coffee out through your nose, tee-hee, simper, simper, sigh, sigh) "educated" me about some in the gay community practicing what's called "teabagging."] So, since I'm all about being "Taxed Enough Already" (TEA) and do occasionally enjoy a cup of hot tea or a glass of iced tea but am definitely not into "teabagging," I use TEA Party, just to be grammatically correct, accurate and clear.

Anyway, this organizing meeting was voluntarily "organized" by a couple of guys who had voluntarily collected email addresses from those of us who had voluntarily attended a local 4th of July TEA Party and wanted to be kept informed of other, similar upcoming events which we could voluntarily attend and/or otherwise support. I wasn't paid to attend, nor was I coerced into attending. Heck, they didn't even serve refreshments, not even tea.

This organizing meeting was held in the mid-sized meeting room of a local library. They expected about 20 to 30 people to show up. There were over 100 of us there ..... Republicans, Federalists, Independents, Libertarians and moderate Democrats ..... some from the distance of several counties away ..... on a Wednesday midweek work night ..... from 8-10PM ..... when we could all have been relaxing, spending time with our families or watching our favorite TV shows. And many lingered after the meeting to further exchange ideas and contact information.

This is the kind of concerned citizen, genuine grassroots movement which Obama, his White House henchmen and the Congressional Democrats all want to ignore and deplore, deny and decry, demonize and denigrate, claiming the protests and meetings are organized by the GOP or some other Obama-unapproved organization, funded by this or that nefarious special interest group, and that we participants are "organized" and "enticed" to attend (please refer back to my third paragraph, above).

Besides, it's too late. Already too big and still growing, one might say by leaps and bounds. I'm hearing of more and more local TEA Party events which are having to be moved to larger venues at the last minute because of turnout exceeding planners' projections. Each one seems to be bigger and better attended than the last.

Democrats and other liberals may hold sway in Washington for now and you may ridicule us if you like (some of us know ridicule is a standard Marxist Saul Alinsky tactic anyway), but we won't be relegated to the sidelines any longer. Ignore, deplore, deny, decry, demonize, denigrate, ridicule and relegate us at your own risk. The more of that you do, instead of really listening to what your constituents are upset about, and the more you are aided and abetted in that by the liberal lamestream media's unrepresentative and unbalanced coverage (or selective lack thereof), the more anxious and angry, the more denied and disenfranchised, the more frustrated and furious we will feel and the more persistent and powerful we shall become.

Watch out, Dems and other liberals! A growing giant is finally awake now, and watching everything you do. Try to ridicule and relegate us now if you dare, but a reckoning is coming.

Politico.com recently ran an article about Obama's birth certificate controversy and MSNBC's Chris Matthews questioning of a Congressman who wants to introduce a requirement for all candidates for president to produce a birth certificate to prove eligibility for the office.

(Amazingly enough, although many of us have to show our birth certificate just to get a new driver's license and I had to literally give my certified birth certificate to the Social Security Administration for a while before they would approve my receiving the social security which I had paid into for over 45 years, there evidently has never been and there still is not any legal requirement for presidential candidates to prove by showing their birth certificates that they are, in the language of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, "a natural born Citizen" of the United States.)   

Someone called HookahJoe was one of the commenters on the article: "Actually, these Birthers are the same people who claimed '911 was an Inside Job!' They just need a new unreasonable theory to keep pushing."

My reply:

Not so, HookahJoe -- although I don't know why I'm even replying to someone who calls himself HookahJoe. What do you smoke in that hookah, Joe? Never mind, just kidding. Besides, I didn't Mirandize you first.

I don't think 9-11 was an inside job and I am not a die-hard "birther," either, but I do wonder why Obama has gone to such lengths to conceal all sorts of what would normally be public records about his past.

For example, in addition to whatever type of birth certificate one may want to discuss or question, there's also: (a) Obama's kindergarten records, (b) Punahou school records, (c) Occidental College records, (d) Columbia University records, (e) Columbia thesis, (f) Harvard Law School records, (g) Harvard Law Review articles, or even Editor's comments on other people's articles, (h) scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, (i) passport, (j) medical records, (k) files from his years as an Illinois state senator, (l) Illinois State Bar Association records, (m) any baptism records and (n) his adoption records.

One doesn't have to be any particular kind of conspiracy theorist or whacky nutjob to wonder why all the secrecy about all that. If you have nothing to hide, then why are you hiding so much? Seems to me like a logical question to ask -- as well as one which should be fairly easy and straightforward to answer -- once and for all.  So, why doesn't Obama just do that?

Just askin' - Just sayin'.

I recently stated at the beginning of another article that it seemed to me that President Obama is on TV all the time but that I was too lazy to research if my perception squared with actual facts or not. Well, now somebody has done that for me, so I thought I would share that info with you. (And, yes, IMNSHO, it seems I was right.....again! And, no, I'm not one of those who falsely claims that I don't want to tell you that I told you so, either. Actually, I'm one of those who absolutely delights in telling you that I told you so....and that you should have listened to me in the first place. So there! All in good fun, though.)

According to a Forbes.com article headlined "Camera Hog in Chief," during the first six months of 2009, Obama was cited in 1.1 million stories in the mainstream, Internet, and social media. That's an average of 6,100 references A DAY! 

"That's more than triple what Obama's last two predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, got in the mainstream press during their first six months," Forbes observed. Think about that now. That means that Obama has had THREE TIMES the exposure of not only EITHER ONE of his last two predecessors but THREE TIMES the exposure of BOTH OF THEM TOGETHER!  Now, I long ago pegged this guy as a world-class narcissist, but really, will somebody get a grip here and tell Obama to stay in the Oval Office and get some work done, at least some of the time?

According to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who has covered every president since Gerald Ford, Obama delivered 281 speeches, gave 88 interviews to journalists, hosted 30 news conferences, and emceed 14 town hall meetings in the first half of this year. Thank you, Mark, for totaling all that up for us. I knew it was a lot, because it seems a day doesn't go by without Obama being on TV about something, but I had no idea it was THAT much.

But there's evidence that Americans may be getting "Obummered." Obama's February address to Congress drew 52 million viewers, but his news conference on health care reform in late July (or was it already health insurance reform by then?) only drew 29 million. Could it be that the public may be tiring of too much of a good thing? Yes, Mr. Wonderful, even too much of you is, well, still too much. Try chillin' for a while and maybe just looking at yourself in the mirror more often (if that's possible), while giving the rest of us a little break from your, ah, magnificent munificence, your fascinating physiognomy, your brighter than the morning star brilliance, your, uh, yadda, yadda, yadda.

President Obama had another of his so-called press conferences last Wednesday night. But, um, when you rely so heavily on a teleprompter, pick which reporters you're going to call on ahead of time, basically have the questions and your responses scripted, and spend an inordinate amount of time giving non-answers to the few questions you are asked, it's not really much of a real "press conference," is it? It's just you, all stage-managed and perfectly lighted to look and sound presidential, before the TV cameras -- again. I sometimes wonder (but not enough to bother researching it), just how many days since being sworn in has Obama NOT been on TV? I can't think of any right now, but I'm sure there's GOT to be at least one or two. He's got to be the most visible president, with the most invisible agenda and the largest shadow government, ever.

Anyway, after using most of the "presser" to sell his health scare reform plan, Mr. Obama must have gotten an unscreened, unscripted, unteleprompted (read: "real") question right toward the end, when he was asked his opinion about a local police incident which occurred in Cambridge, Mass., this past week involving a Harvard professor, one Henry Louis Gates, Jr., who is also evidently a friend of Mr. Obama's.

After admitting that he was only vaguely familiar with what happened, Obama said the police involved had acted "stupidly." (Oopsie! See, Barack, that's what happens when you go off teleprompter!) As president of the United States, on national television, in prime time, at the end of a presidential press conference, Obama (arrogantly, foolishly, one might even say "stupidly") decided his not knowing the details was no bar to his denigrating a white Cambridge police sergeant in particular and the Cambridge police department in general in defense of his friend, the black professor. W-e-l-l-l-l, no contest, right? POTUS versus small town police sergeant? WRONG! And here's why (and you could not make this stuff up, folks, even if you tried):

(a) It seems that Sgt. James Crowley is a well-regarded, veteran officer who is himself an expert on racial profiling.
(b) It seems that Sgt. Crowley, for several years now, has voluntarily spent some of his own money and normal off-duty time teaching other police officers about racial profiling.
(c) It seems that Crowley was also the police officer who administered mouth-to-mouth resuscitation in trying to save the life of former Boston Celtics player Reggie Lewis, a black man, who collapsed and died during an off-season workout at Brandeis University.
(d) It seems that Sgt. Crowley responded to a call at the Cambridge home of Mr. Gates last week to investigate a report of a burglary made by a neighbor.
(e) In fact, it seems there had been a report of a burglary at that same location previously.
(f) Although Crowley, who is white, was the senior policeman on the scene, he was accompanied by two other police officers, one black and one Hispanic (See, how perfectly "tri-racial" is that? I told you, you can't make this stuff up.)
(g) Crowley confronted Gates and another man who appeared to have been forcing open the door of the house. Crowley asked Gates to show him identification. Gates at first refused and accused Crowley of racism.
(h) After Gates was finally identified as the home owner, he was not charged with burglary but was arrested for disorderly conduct for refusing to identify himself, for creating a disturbance by yelling at the police officers and accusing them of being racist, along with making derogatory comments about Crowley's mother, who, so far as it is known, Gates has never even met. (Real nice behavior for anyone, much less a Harvard professor, black, white or purple, don't you think?)
(i) Even the disorderly conduct charges against Gates, although seemingly warranted, were dropped by last Tuesday, the day before Obama felt compelled to comment on the incident. (Except for Gates claiming, rather brashly given the circumstances, that Crowley should apologize to him, instead of the other way around, the incident was all but over and done with. That is, until Obama commented on it and gave it renewed life in the news cycle. Duh!)
(j) It also seems that Obama may have had his own axe to grind with the Cambridge police department. Obama, who attended Harvard Law School from 1988 to 1991, lived in Cambridge, and apparently didn't like the fact he frequently received parking tickets. In all, he received 17 tickets for parking violations -- and never paid 15 of them until he was exposed by a local Massachusetts newspaper as a scofflaw. According to a 2007 Associated Press story, Obama was a parking ticket deadbeat for more than a decade and only felt the need to pay the 15 outstanding parking tickets as his presidential campaign began in earnest in January 2007. (Eerily reminiscent of when some of Obama's nominees for cabinet positions finally pay their income taxes, isn't it?)
(k) Obama concluded his comments by saying the incident "highlights ongoing problems with race relations in the U.S."

It sure does, Mr. President. When the U.S. president, especially a black, or at least bi-racial, and supposedly "post-racial" president, admits he knows little of the facts of an incident but still decides to denigrate a small town police sergeant, who happens to be white, on national television in defense of his friend, a black professor, that does highlight ongoing problems with race relations, sure enough, but probably not in the way you intended your comments. Why? Because you and your black professor friend come off as more racially "trigger happy" than the police sergeant did, that's why. 

And when someone seemingly engaged in unlawful activity not only refuses to identify himself to a police officer in the lawful execution of his duties but also creates a disturbance and raises the false charges of racism and racial profiling, it's just not enough any more that the officer is white and the "suspect" is black. Most Americans have moved beyond that kind of knee jerk reaction to the playing of the race card to which certain black "leaders" have conditioned many whites since the 1960s. In fact, that movement away from such knee jerk, "conditioned" reactions is one of the things which made your being elected possible, Mr. President.

It isn't "automatically" racism or racial profiling anymore just because a black man claims that it is -- even if he is a Harvard professor and even if he shouts it. And it's not any of that even if that black man happens to also be a friend of the president of the United States. And it's not any of that even if the "first black president" himself, who should, whether black, white, brown, red or yellow, hold himself, and his office, above commenting on things he obviously knows little about, suggests that it is, either. You should have known that, not only as a lawyer but as a highfalutin' Harvard lawyer, to boot, much less as president.