Someone once remarked that the United States would have a black president “when pigs fly”…
.
…and 100 days into Barack Obama’s presidency:

In a completely expected and long-anticipated, unsurprising move, Arlen Specter announced today that he’s going to disenfranchise the voters of Pennsylvannia who elected a Republican to the Senate by switching his party affiliation to Democrat, and shifting the balance of power to a filibuster-proof total of 60.

I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

Of course, most normal conservatives have found his political philosophy to be in line with Democrats for years now.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Someone apparently confused “big tent” with “big spend”…

It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate.

Translation: Pat Toomey’s announcement recently that he’s running for the Republican nomination in the Republican senatorial primary means Specter’s RINO career in the Senate will be coming to an end shortly, so he’ll take the DNC payoff and hope to earn a committee chairmanship in the process.

I have not represented the Republican Party.

On this, we can agree.

But don’t worry, Specter says he will still oppose card-check…

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch, which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (card check) will not change.

And we know how much Specter’s word is worth…

Sen. Arlen Specter said Tuesday that he will not run for reelection in 2010 as a Democrat, but might run as an Independent.

“I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That’s the basis of politics in America. I think each of the 41 Republican senators, in a sense — and I don’t want to overstate this — is a national asset because if one was gone, you’d only have 40, the Democrats would have 60, and they would control all of the mechanisms of government. [Democrats] are trying very hard for the 60th vote. Got to give them credit for trying. But the answer is no.”

While you’re at it, can you please take Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and John McCain too? We might as well just use this opportunity to drain the swamp entirely.

The only solution is a government takeover of the teleprompter industry…

Her lips are moving…

Here’s what she’s claiming today:

“In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel … opinions that they could be used,” she told reporters today.

But here is what took place in 2002 and 2003:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
…
Yet long before “waterboarding” entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

If there were a third possible position to take on this subject, I’m sure Nancy would find a way to take that one before long.

…and the joke’s on us.

Remember when the Community Organizer in Chief’s own Vice President said he’s not ready to be President. Judging by the appointments he’s made, Biden was probably right.

.
.
A Treasury Secretary who doesn’t bother to pay his taxes.
.
.

A Secretary of Homeland Security who doesn’t know the law regarding border crossing or over which border the 9/11 terrorists entered our country.
.
.

A National Economic Council Director who falls asleep during important meetings. (Twice, now)
.
.
.

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

CNN reporter Susan Roesgen displays downright indignation toward a protestor yesterday who was carrying a sign depicting Barack Obama looking like Hitler.

Roesgen: (pointing to a sign with Obama compare to Hitler) What is this supposed to mean? What do you mean by that?

Protestor: Well, I mean… He’s a fascist. The pirates…

Roesgen: Wait. Why do you say he’s a fascist? He’s the President of the United States.

Protestor: He’s a fascist.

Roesgen: Do you realize how offensive that is?

Protestor: I think he’s a fascist.
…
Roesgen: Why be so hard on the President of the United States, though, with such an offensive message?

Her indignation might carry some weight if it were true that she took offense to comparing “the President of the United States” to Hitler… but alas, this outrage apparently only applies to one type of President… the one with the (D) next to his name.

Flashback to 2006 and the same Susan Roesgen reacting to a protestor wearing a George W. Bush mask made to look like Hitler (and Satan):

Roesgen: “City officials aren’t the only ones wondering when federal money will materialize. Catholic school girls marched on Jackson Square. They and their teachers say more money is needed to fix the levees, and they hoped the President would stop by after his meeting with business leaders. But while a look-alike showed up with a wad of cash, Mr. Bush did not.”

Really? A look-alike? Color me confused, but I don’t remember Bush having devil horns or a Hitler mustache. Apparently adding the horns to the depiction of the U.S. President as Hitler is enough to overcome the “offensiveness” of the gesture.

What media bias?

UPDATE: Protestors respond to Roesgen with some schooling.

UPDATE 2: More from the Roesgen Hearts Obama vault:

Along with all the sexual innuendo from Olbermann, Cooper, et al., it’s clear these liberal spokesmen have decided to toss journalistic ethics aside in favor of biased, blatant partisanship. Probably explains why they’re getting their asses handed to them in the ratings every night.

Barack Obama, through his spokesman, claimed today that he was unaware of the tax day tea parties. Granted, the MSM has done a good job in suppressing any sort of coverage ahead of time (and the little coverage they did provide was derisive at best)… but how out of touch is the Community Organizer in Chief, really?

This much.

- He was unaware that he was attending a church (for 20 years) with a racist pastor who hates America.

- He was unaware that he was family friends with, and started his political career in the living room of, a domestic terrorist.

- He was unaware that he had invested in two speculative companies backed by some of his top donors right after taking office in 2005.

- He was unaware that his own aunt was living in the US illegally.

- He was unaware that his own brother lives on pennies a day in a hut in Kenya.

- He was unaware of the AIG bonuses that he and his administration approved and signed into a bill.

- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of COmmerce was under investigation in a bribery scandal.

- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services was a tax cheat.

- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of the Treasury was a tax cheat.

- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be the U.S. Trade Representative was a tax cheat.

- He was unaware that the woman he nominated to be his Chief Performance Officer was a tax cheat.

- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be #2 at the Environmental Protection Agency was under investigation for mismanaging $25 million in EPA grants.

For the love of God, there are people in comas that are more aware of world affairs than this guy.

And conveniently on the day before the grassroots Tax Day Tea Party protests, through the Director of Homeland Security, they’ve issued a laughable piece of propaganda entitled, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment“.

According to the Community Organizer in Chief’s Administration, you may be a “potential terrorist” if you believe, like the Founding Fathers did, in Federalism…

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely.

So where would someone get a wacky idea that the power of the federal government are limited in favor of states rights? Oh yeah, the U.S. Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Must be why liberal MSM talking heads called our Founding Fathers terrorists, too.

And if you support the Right to Life or oppose illegal immigration… well, you may be an enemy of the state, too.

It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

The hypocrisy of the Left is shocking. For eight years, they railed against George W. Bush and Conservatives… making comparisons to Hitler and calling us Fascists. Yet, the very administration led by a guy who launched his political career from the living room of a real domestic terrorist is using the federal government to publish propaganda calling us terrorists for believing in principles upon which our nation was founded.

In the military fighting for this country? Congratulations, your Commander in Chief considers you a potential terrorist too.

(U) Disgruntled Military Veterans

(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

It makes sense the administration would take this position with the military… Afterall, Obama is on record accusing these American heroes of “just air-raiding villages and killing civilians“. (Probably why Obama had to stage a photo op with these rightwing extremists)

I would probably worry more about a fascist administration calling me a “potential terrorist”, but I guess I’m too busy bitterly clinging to my guns and religion.

UPDATE: Our own Texas Governor Rick Perry can now count himself among those the Obama administration views as “potential terrorists”…

God Bless Texas!