As with Senator Kennedy, the guy ain't in the ground yet and spinners are already re-writing history.

All I need to know of Murtha is this:

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Rep. John Murtha cannot be sued for accusing U.S. Marines of murdering Iraqi civilians "in cold blood," remarks that sparked outrage among conservative commentators.
The appeals court in Washington dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by a Marine who led the squad in the attack. The judges agreed with Murtha that he was immune from the lawsuit because he was acting in his official role as a lawmaker when he made the comments to reporters.
Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich of Meriden, Conn., claimed Murtha damaged his reputation by saying the squad he was leading engaged in "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" in Haditha, Iraq, on Nov. 19, 2005.
At a Capitol Hill news conference in May 2006, Murtha predicted that a Pentagon war crimes investigation would show the Marines killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha.
- Newsmax article

The Marines were found not guilty of all charges.


To summarize, Murtha condemned Marines for murder when he didn't have all the facts. Once ht got the facts, he refused to apologize, then hid behind his political office while hurling unsubstantiated accusations.

Murtha will rot in the part of hell reserved for rapists and child molesters and traitors and people who thin Carrot Top is funny.

His death is unfortunate - since I never got the chance to stand before the man and call him a traitor to his face.


Rot in hell, asshole.

To my continued amazement, Hussein is getting traction with the "Bush spent all this money, it ain't my fault."

Barack Hussein Obama is a moron. And not just any moron, a champion moron, one could say a moron's moron.

The stimulus money Obama is trying so hard to tie around Bush's neck, he voted for it. And not only did he vote for it, he complained that it wasn't enough.

Now, with the largest budget in human (possible universe) history, he's still playing the part of the victim.

The deficits projected through 2020 continue to sore, and Bush's expenditures go away at the end of 2010 (say goodbye to those Bush tax cuts), and Obama still blames Bush.

The amount of money being spent today in Washington is unconscionable, yet still they trudge on, spending money we've not yet borrowed from China, in an effort to - what exactly? How does extending unemployment benefits encourage job growth?

We, as a nation, are retarded, we, as a nation (not me personally) elected a moron's moron, an ACORN attorney, a self-professed "Community Organizer" to lead our nation. We got what we (again, not me) voted for: an activist with an agenda counter to the American people's will.

I figure we have 2 more years of terrible leadership before he hits the campaign trails, blaming Bush for every mistake any administration ever made.

With some luck, you idiots will have figured it out by then.

For those who voted for Obama, thanx. Dicks.

State or federal, works for both.


Question: How do we stop spending so much money?
Answer: Stop spending so much money!

How retarded are these people?


Hussein and Arnold talk like entitlement programs are fixed, can't be defunded.

California is in hock to the US government, the US government is in hock to the nation of China.

By 2020, if the zombies don't get us, the interest payments on our debt will.

Bring on the Third World US of A!

Below are articles from the recent news, and what they "mean" but do not say.

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran rose Monday after the Obama Administration quietly increased the capability of land and sea-based missile defenses in several Gulf nations to protect American allies against a potential Iranian strike.
Administration officials said over the weekend that the U.S. was speeding up arms sales to a number of Gulf Arab states and that it had also deployed warships capable of knocking down hostile missiles in flight to the region.

Explanation:
Obama has surrendered to Iran, acknowledging that he will not take all necessary steps to prevent a nuclear Iran, instead implementing his retarded foreign policy that "the best offense is good defense."

No one ever won a gun fight by swatting down "some" bullets.

The Obama administration is considering several steps that would review the legality of the controversial Bowl Championship Series, the Justice Department said in a letter Friday to a senator who had asked for an antitrust review.

Explanation:
With his domestic policy an abysmal failure and his foreign policy the joke of the world, what will he screw up next? He can't protect our union, he can't create jobs, he can't fix health care issues, he can't stabilize the economy, he can't deliver on any promise made during the State of the Union or on the campaign trail; so, what's left, "I bet I could man-handle the collegiate football programs!"

Is it racist to admit that the first black President in U.S. history is the worst President in U.S. history?

After years in which global warming activists had lectured everyone about the overwhelming nature of the scientific evidence, it turned out that the most prestigious agencies in the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data, and making inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, no scientific basis at all. This latest story in the London Times is yet another shocker; the IPCC’s claims that the rainforests were going to disappear as a result of global warming are as bogus and fraudulent as its claims that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. It seems as if a scare story could grab a headline, the IPCC simply didn’t care about whether it was reality-based.

Explanation:
Though this is overwhelmingly obvious, some still miss it: rain forests LOVE carbon dioxide, some could say they need it to live! Global warming is great for rain forests.
Somehow I missed the assertion that global warming would destroy rain forests. In truth, there are few things better we could do than increase the CO2 in the atmosphere - at least from the plants' perspective.

The numbers tell a bleak story. In 1996, California had 21 percent of the nation’s welfare cases. Today, 32 percent of all welfare cases in the United States are in California, even though we only represent 12 percent of the total U.S. population. Consider this troubling comparison; California is nearly twice as big as New York state, but we have five times as many welfare cases.
Despite being a state famous for opportunity and promise, California lags much of the nation when it comes to moving people from welfare to work, according to the federal government. Only 22 percent of welfare recipients in California who are required to meet federal work minimums are working. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, our state is one of only nine that does not unconditionally enforce the federal government’s five-year lifetime limit on cash welfare assistance. These flaws in our welfare system, coupled with a monthly cash check that is almost 70 percent higher than the national average, work against the goal of helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity.

Explanation for the morons in California:

Obvious to anyone capable of deductive reasoning: increasing the people's dependence on the government NEVER decreases people's dependence on the government!

Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"
- from Hussein's of the Union Address

"What's in it for me?"

Sure, there was plenty on which to focus, the ridiculous spending initiatives presented along-side the "fiscal responsibility", the constant blame shifting to "obstructionists" and the prior administration, the admission that the American people did not like his explanation (and failing to see that what we hate is the policy, not the description of the policy); but how the hell has everyone missed the significance of his line, "What's in it for me"?

Has it been so long since a democrat said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"?

Hussein is in office because the masses wanted a change (and change, they got; "How'd that work out for ya?") Free stuff was the promise, and Hussein understands the piper wants his due. Now, as the leader of this nation, he accepts that the way to buy votes for his agenda is to answer the question of the masses: "What's in it for me" - or to not answer it, sometimes.

Am I alone in wanting nothing more from this federal government than strong national defense and a protection of Constitutional freedoms? I accept that the Constitution gives me no "right" to free health care, no "right" to free education, no "right" to free cable television, no "right" to free food or housing; and I fail to see how government (the historically-proven least efficient way of getting anything done) involved in my health care, my bank account, my education, my housing, or my food is a good thing.

Just as Hussein got it wrong in stating his case against the Supreme Court decision (he'd much rather the mainstream media have unobstructed voice for the 30 days prior to federal elections), he got it wrong in assuming we all want free shit from the government.

And, if you are unfortunate enough to make more than $250,000/year, be advised, Hussein hates you, and if you are white and make more than $250,000/year, be ready, his government is coming to bleed you dry!

Someone's gotta pay for all this free stuff.