2011 - The Year We Take Back Congress and Make Obama's Life Hell!

Friday, April 29, 2011

Sucker, Punched,....


On the same day President Obama is announcing changes to his national security team, potential presidential hopeful and former Senator Rick Santorum slammed the White House for appeasing its enemies and failing to advance U.S. national security interests.

"When a president...apologizes for our country and her immediate policies, we do not advance our security - we diminish our credibility," Santorum said at Washington's National Press Club Thursday afternoon, adding that President Obama "doesn't believe in American foreign policy" and is "trying to hide" from "political heat."


Best known for his outspoken conservative views on social issues, the Pennsylvania Republican served on the Senate Armed Services Committee and has been amplifying his criticism of the president's foreign policy in recent weeks. Earlier this month, Santorum announced that he was "testing the waters" for a presidential run.

"Nothing has illustrated the failure of President Obama's foreign policy more than how we have dealt with Iran," he said of Iranian dissidents. "We sided with evil because our president believes our enemies are legitimately aggrieved and thus we have no standing to intervene." (read more)

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, April 01, 2010

Obama Wins! (And I am Kicked Off the Blogosphere!)

Gentle readers,
Hopefully, you'll still be able to read this before Google's executioner takes a swipe at my neck!

Yesterday morning, I received an e-mail from Google, the parent company of Blogger (my blog's platform) stating that my blog was to be shutdown due to "violations" of their user policies.

To wit:

Your blog, "Bitter American," with the Blogspot URL of "trekmedic251," has been found to be in violation of the End User Licensing Agreement (EULA) of Blogger, a Google corporate entity, under section 4, part 1, article 10: under EULA agreement, the registrant shall not incur, within a 12 month rolling period, a number of abuse reports exceeding the threshhold therein enumerated under section 1, part 21, article 13. The result of such a violation is the termination of contract between Blogger, a Google corporate entity and the party or parties identified as agreeing to the EULA at the time of the creation of said account. The party has been identified as the registrant utilizing the e-mail account of ejangiolillo1@verizon.net.

The termination of your account will occur within the next 24-48 hours. If you disagree with the decision to terminate your EULA priviledges, you must contact us at +8884664541 no later than 6pm PDT on March 30, 2010 (Note: the e-mail wasn't sent to me until March 31st!!)

Friends, I can only surmise that my blog, along with those of other right-minded individuals, has been the target of a coordinated attack by Obamaphiles, Nutroots, Kos-mo-nuts and Huff-and-Puff adherents!

I'm going to try and save the HTML code to migrate over to another host, but in the meantime, continue the good fight, stop the Obamessiah before he shreds the First Amendment once and for all, and drop a few teabags in the Potomac for me!

Forever faithful in what America was and can be again,

Ed "Bitter American" Angiolillo!!

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

No Truer Words,...




In new book, Michael Steele says the GOP should acknowledge where "we most glaringly compromised our principles" in the past decade and hold its elected officials accountable.

WASHINGTON -- Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele offers a simple explanation for why the GOP may have lost touch with some Americans since the Ronald Reagan era: "We screwed up," he claims in a new book offering a blueprint for the party's resurgence.

That "we" includes the last two Republican presidents and the most recent Republican candidate for president.

In "Right Now: A 12-Step Program for Defeating the Obama Agenda," released Monday by Regnery Publishing, Steele says the GOP should acknowledge where "we most glaringly compromised our principles" in the past decade and hold its elected officials accountable.

"We must support Republican officials who assert these principles," he writes. "When elected Republicans vote against Republican principles, the voters must withhold their support -- withhold it vigorously and consistently."

Labels: , ,

Sunday, November 15, 2009

How Did THIS Get Past the MSM Censors??

Who needs Glenn Beck? Score a victory for the media-infiltrating right:



There's a lot to love about ABC's remake of "V," from the re-emergence of everyone's favorite "Firefly" companion (Morena Baccarin) to the amped-up special effects, but the show's political underpinnings seem designed to appeal to a pretty specific crowd.

Like its "Beastmaster"-aided predecessor, this "V" also contains heavy doses of political allegory, but in the original, the villains were analogous to the Nazis. Although ABC downplays the connections, in this update, the alien visitors share a lot in common with the Obama administration. Many town hall protesters might ask what the difference is.

Check out the parallels between the new "V" series and a right-wing fever dream, and see an extended preview of the first episode.

1. The aliens come to Earth using Obama-campaign watchwords hope and change, and offer the most literal form of universal health care. Aided by a complicit news media, they assuage rabid protesters through a sweet-talking figurehead. Skeptics try to warn everyone of the impending danger, but nobody listens.

2. Of course, the most striking comparison is that, while many Obama opponents are sure he's concealing an alien birth certificate, the seemingly benevolent V's are pretending to be just like us, but (spoiler alert) are hiding lizardy evidence that they just aren't.

3. The whole thing could have been lifted from the minds of Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs.

Of course, the flip side to this is the possibility that, in macro, this is actually a satire of the anti-Obama hysteria that's filling Fox News' coffers. Either way, the new "V" is a great way to start a good argument while watching some cool sci-fi action.

UPDATE: The White House reacts to allegations of right-wing agenda in "V."

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, July 20, 2008

The TrekMedic Rebounds!

5 point gain for the TrekMedic, but a huge loss for Tony P!

BlogNetNews PA Top 20:

Those worthy of reading are in RED

1 Lehigh Valley Ramblings
2 TONY PHYRILLAS
3 GrassrootsPA
4 Suburban Guerrilla
5 POLICY BLOG
6 THE CENTRIST
7 Philebrity
8 PolitickerPA
9 PowerBlog!
10 Capitol Ideas
11 Booman Tribune
12 PSoTD
13 Is this Life?
13 NEPALibWatch
15 Pawatercooler.com
16 Fact-esque
17 molovinsky on allentown
18 Comments From Left Field
19 Froth Slosh B'Gosh
20 Above Average Jane

Again,..worthy of consideration:

Northern Lehigh Valley Logic
Page 13 News
Save the GOP!
The Clarke Report
Lincoln Blog
Writemarsh
Pro-Life PA
Gunservatively!

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, May 29, 2008

A Few Righteous Slaps in the Face,...



Days before a deadline to vacate their historical Center City headquarters because of their policies on homosexuals and atheists, the Boy Scouts have sued the city, saying their constitutional rights have been trampled.

The federal suit, assigned to U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter, asks for a court order prohibiting city officials from evicting the Cradle of Liberty Council from its building, a Beaux Arts structure at 22d and Winter Streets. The scouts had been facing a deadline of Saturday to change their policy, begin paying market rates - about $200,000 a year - for the half-acre of city-owned land near Logan Square, or vacate.

The civil-rights lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court in Center City, contends that the city is violating the scouts' rights under the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions.

"The City has imposed an unconstitutional condition upon Cradle of Liberty's receipt of a benefit that Cradle of Liberty has enjoyed for nearly eight decades," the suit reads.

Mayor Nutter, asked about the lawsuit at a speaking engagement yesterday in Harrisburg, said: "The issue is very, very clear and has been clear for a very long time. . . . I do find it interesting that somehow, some way, the Girl Scouts have figured out how to provide services to all girls and not discriminate, and the Boy Scouts have not figured out how to do the same.

"Our position is, you cannot discriminate in terms of delivery of services on city property," Nutter added. "The U.S. Supreme Court has opined that the Boy Scouts can have any rules that they want, and at the same time you can't discriminate on public property."

If the judge rules in the city's favor, the lawsuit asks that the Cradle of Liberty Council, which represents 70,000 members in Philadelphia, Delaware and Montgomery Counties, be compensated for its investment.

The building was erected by the Boy Scouts at a cost of $200,000. Cradle of Liberty officials say they renovated the building in 1994 for $2.6 million and spend about $60,000 a year on maintenance.

Regardless of the lawsuit's outcome, its filing means the scouts will not be on the sidewalk come Monday morning. Lawyers for both sides said the lawsuit preserves the status quo until the court rules, a process that could take months or more.

The lawsuit maintains that about 100 private organizations with membership criteria - including 15 youth groups - lease city property at rents of under $2,000 a year.

Only the Boy Scouts, the suit continues, have been threatened with eviction.

The lawsuit mentions the Roman Catholic Church of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which the suit says has paid a nominal rent for a church building in Pennypack Park since 1935; Zion Baptist Church, which pays $25 a year to lease three parcels of recreational land for the Clara Baldwin Home for seniors; and Women for Greater Philadelphia and the Colonial Dames of America, which have free perpetual leases for historic mansions in Fairmount Park.

"This city allows numerous organizations to use city-owned property and does not necessarily refuse them based on restrictions on membership," said Center City lawyer Jason P. Gosselin, who filed the suit on behalf of the Cradle of Liberty Council.

City Solicitor Shelley R. Smith said she believes the difference between the Boy Scouts and the other groups that lease city land or buildings is that the other groups do not discriminate in the social services they provide.

Smith said you cannot be a Boy Scout if you are openly gay or an atheist: "If we find that these other groups are doing that, we will take the appropriate action."

The Cradle of Liberty Council's predicament is one that scouting councils nationwide have faced since a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case the scouts won.

In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that the scouts are a private group and thus have the right of "expressive association" under the First Amendment to set their own membership rules.

But the scouts' legal victory soon soured as municipal officials began reexamining long-standing relationships with local scout groups.

Local public officials say they are bound by another line of court rulings that bar them from using taxpayer support for any private group that discriminates. Other supporters, such as United Way, also dropped the scouts.

The scouts have maintained that they cannot change their membership policies without being ejected by the national scout organization and cannot afford the rent.

Scout officials say $200,000 a year would fund 30 new Cub Scout packs of summer camp for 800 needy children.

In October 2006, the Supreme Court refused to review a California Supreme Court ruling affirming the City of Berkeley's decision to revoke free marina use for a Sea Scouts group.

Gosselin said he did not believe the high court's ruling in the Berkeley case meant the Cradle of Liberty lawsuit could not succeed.

"Their decision not to take up the case on appeal was not a decision on the merits of the case," Gosselin said. "They don't take that many cases."

Philadelphia has an added wrinkle: a 1982 Fair Practices Ordinance that also bars the city from supporting any discriminatory groups.

Gosselin said the 1982 ordinance raises another question: "This situation has existed for 20 years. Why now?"




BEIRUT, Lebanon - Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora won a new term yesterday with the backing of a pro-U.S. coalition, angering the Hezbollah-led opposition, which had pressed for a change in leadership.

The decision came amid a two-day outbreak of low-level violence between supporters of the country's two main political camps.

Saniora was named anew to the government's most powerful executive position just three days after former army chief of staff Michel Suleiman was elected president and assigned to name a government after an accord meant to end a 19-month political crisis.

"Our national unity and coexistence are what we hold most precious and are the secret to the survival of this country," Saniora said in a televised address. "I address myself to my brothers in the nation from all sides and backgrounds with an open mind."

Saniora's victory appeared to catch the opposition off guard. Syrian- and Iranian-backed factions and most analysts said they believed the majority pro-U.S. coalition known as the March 14 movement would nominate parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri, leader of the country's Sunni Arab community.

Hariri had met for more than an hour Monday with Manoucher Mottaki, the foreign minister of Iran. The meeting suggested that he might have gained the blessings of Hezbollah's primary international patron.

Although the pro-government camp denied any intent to rile the opposition, the move was seen as an attempt by the March 14 coalition to show its independence. The powerful opposition bloc had won numerous concessions, including the ability to veto any cabinet decisions by the government, in the agreement early this month after Hezbollah fighters seized control of western Beirut for a short time.

Although opposition leaders said they would abide by the decision of the pro-government camp, Hezbollah's television channel, Al Manar, attacked the prime minister as having brought the country to "political, economic and social catastrophe," noted that he received the approval of only 68 out of 127 lawmakers and warned of political instability in the next government.

Labels:

Saturday, May 03, 2008

Another One Bites the Dust!




LONDON — A Conservative lawmaker with a knack for offensive remarks ousted the left-wing mayor of London in an upset that capped the ruling Labour Party's worst local election showing in four decades.

Results released early Saturday showed Boris Johnson defeating Ken Livingstone in Labour's first test at the polls since then-Prime Minister Tony Blair handed the reins last year to Gordon Brown, who has since been dogged by accusations of indecision and incompetence.

Voters also picked opposition candidates in more than 300 municipal council races, prompting Brown to humbly pledge to heed the scathing verdict.

Conservative leader David Cameron said his party's strong gains represented a key moment on the path to ousting Brown at the next national election, to be held before mid-2010.

"Three years ago the idea that the Conservatives would win London and build up a 20-point lead across the county would have been literally unthinkable," Cameron said.

"I do hope that it does show that the Conservatives have changed into a party that can again be trusted," Johnson said, shortly after the result was announced to cheers from raucous supporters. "Let's get cracking tomorrow and let's have a drink tonight."

Johnson, a former magazine editor, offered lavish praise for his rivals in the race and paid tribute to Livingstone's role in guiding London through the 2005 transit network bombings.

Livingstone — a staunch leftist who courted Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and faced off with the U.S. Embassy for unpaid congestion charges — said the blame for his defeat must rest at his door, not Brown's.

"I accept that responsibility and I regret that I couldn't take you to victory," the veteran politician said, looking pale and crestfallen. He leaves office immediately.

Johnson took 1,168,738 votes to Livingstone's 1,028,966 in a contest that hinged on a second round of voting.

Voters are asked to pick a first, then second choice as mayor — Johnson didn't win the required 50 percent initially, but triumphed when second preferences from eight minor candidates, eliminated after the first round, were added to the totals.

Uncombed and often awkward, Johnson is known both his wit and for remarks that are have offended minority communities and others.

He labeled members of the Commonwealth "piccaninnies" — a derogatory term for black people, referred to Africans as having "watermelon smiles," and likened his party's internal conflicts "to Papua New Guinea-style orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing."

Johnson's scorn has also been directed at gay marriage, which became legal in Britain in 2005. In his book "Friends, Voters, Countrymen," he said that if homosexuals could marry then why not "three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog."

Ex-party leader Michael Howard ordered Johnson to visit the northern city of Liverpool in 2004 to apologize after he wrote an editorial accusing the city's people of "wallowing" in victimhood after Liverpudlian Ken Bigley was taken hostage in Iraq and beheaded.

Johnson has cultivated a befuddled, rumpled image and was often seen clumsily pedaling his bicycle to Parliament.

His campaign billboards featured silhouettes of his iconic poses — scratching his unruly thatch of blond hair, ambling along a road with hands stuffed in wrinkled pockets, gesticulating wildly to make a debating point.

His first key test is likely to hinge on how he handles relations with China. As mayor, he will be expected to attend at least part of the Beijing Olympics — and his party will hope he is able to avoid offending the hosts.

"Chinese cultural influence is virtually nil, and unlikely to increase," Johnson wrote in one of his several books — on subjects ranging from sports cars to Ancient Rome.

Johnson said it is likely "there will be the odd ill-chosen expression" in his future.

Results from the 159 local councils which held ballots in England and Wales on Thursday showed the Conservatives gaining 260 seats with Labour losing 333. The Liberal Democrats gained 34 seats.

Most results were announced Friday, but a high turnout in London — where around 5.5million cast ballots — meant the count there continued until early Saturday.

The British Broadcasting Corp. projected the Conservatives would take 44 percent of the vote in England and Wales, putting it 20 points ahead of Labour. Brown's party was a point behind the Liberal Democrats, usually the country's third-largest party, according to the BBC.

Brown was credited with overseeing Britain's longest stretch of postwar prosperity and enjoyed a strong start as prime minister when he took the post in June.He claimed to represent substance after the slick Blair years, but a brief honeymoon with voters ended abruptly when he anguished over, and then ruled out, a snap national election in October.

Since then, grumbles over rising food and fuel prices, tax changes that have hit blue-collar workers and the costly nationalization of mortgage lender Northern Rock have conspired to send poll ratings for his Labour Party to a 20-year low.

One Labour peer, Lord Desai, recently quipped that Brown's true role was to show his party how much they missed Blair.


The TrekMedic pontificates:

Lord Desai is correct: these sort of local elections are frequently a portent of things to come at the national level. This is not unlike the 2006 elections being a sign of public dissatisfaction with Presient Bush and the republican Party.

Now,..with Sarkozy in France, Berlusconi back in Italy and Merkel in Germany taking Europe on the "right"path, could England be next?

The phone lines are open,....keep your fingers crossed.

Labels: , ,

Monday, April 07, 2008

What Makes Up a Conservative?

So asks Jenn, the Conservative Chic:


I've always considered myself a Conservative, but lately a question has come up that I felt I needed to delve into deeper. What is a Conservative? The official definition is this......

[Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favor tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. Conservatism as a political philosophy is difficult to define, encompassing numerous movements, and conservatives sometimes disagree about which parts of a culture are most worthy of preservation.]

As I've been reading about it, I've discovered that it means many different things to different people. ["Conservatism is made up of several different ideologies; Religious conservative, cultural conservative, economic conservative, compassionate conservative, social conservative, paleo-conservative, and neo-conservative."] It isn't just a black and white picture. There are too many gray areas, that I am just beginning to understand. Robert recently did a post regarding his take on Conservatism and I highly recommend you check it out here. I agree with many of his points regarding less government control over our lives. Now on the other side of the spectrum, I suggest you visit a post called Truly Conservative by Tom. He is a liberal and has different viewpoints of what an actual Conservative is. He also makes many valid points.

For me personally, this is a learning process. I haven't been in this whole political scene for long and to be honest, don't have all the answers. (although some would probably be helpful) LOL The more I look into the policies and political issues, the more I realize that there is no one set answer. There is no clear definition and I think it is different for everybody. To help you understand where I am coming from I will give you a few examples from my point of view.....

1. Gun control - I feel it is my right as a United States Citizen to own a gun, although I feel there should be adequate safety procedures to keep everyone safe.

2. Abortion - It is wrong to kill an innocent baby for your convenience. If there is an oops, or even God forbid a rape, then there is always the morning after pill, which I have no problem with.

3. Illegal Immigration - No amnesty. I welcome all immigrants who come to this country legally.

4. Terrorism - Keep our country safe from terrorists at all costs. Without security we don't have a country to worry about.

5. Social Security - It's broken and needs to be fixed. Refer to Roberts post, because I think his idea has merit.

6. Entitlements - I think there needs to be strict guidelines regarding them but some are necessary to preserve the lives of those not educated enough, poor, or unable to work, to make sure theie basic needs provided for. (And I don't mean designer clothes)

7. Bible - I believe in the Bible and use it as a guideline, although I don't take every word literally. I use it along with my own brain to make my decisions, rather that a strict set of rules to follow.

8. Politically Correctness/ACLU - I'm not sure which one of them I hate more!

The following is three quotes someone wrote, not getting into names, that I felt the need to comment on.

[For example, Church organizations and charities are wonderful ways to assist the poor and show our Christian love for our neighbors, but it is not Biblical for people to be forced to provide for the poor through taxation, nor to provide so many government sponsored entitlements that the poor ceases to work towards earning their way out of poverty, instead becoming dependent upon governmental assistance.]

[The American pursuit of happiness, then, naturally includes the pursuit of wealth. In the movie, The Pursuit of Happyness, Will Smith's character seeks wealth so that he can take better care of his son, and not have to remain in a position of poverty. Reaching financial success, for him, was happiness, not because of the money, but because of the security for his family.]

[In a competitive world, success is naturally defined in the terms of money, power, and influence.]

Yes, some people do abuse the system and there should be strict guidelines in place to prevent that. I am on disability. I can't work, although, the past few years I've tried really hard. I worked as an EMT until my anxiety got in the way of helping others. I have no choice. I didn't just decide one day that I didn't feel like working anymore, quit, and then decided to take from the government. Believe me, I would trade my health in a heartbeat to be able to go back to work again. My husband works his ass off because my disability check sure isn't going to pay the bills. We manage to keep our heads above water for the most part. Does being on disability make me lazy or poor? No, but it does make us dependant on the government. What entitlements do you think we should do away with. Disability? Unemployment? Food Stamps? Discount lunches? Please don't get me wrong, I feel that those with money have earned it and I don't envy them nor do I feel they should be punished for their success.

When I think of happiness, I don't think of wealth, power, nor influence. It's having a loving family around me, knowing that they are safe and protected and knowing they have a roof over their head, healthy food to help them grow and an education to help them learn. Happiness to me is in the simple things. Watching the boys play baseball and laughing because they look more like the bad news bears than the Yankees. I'm kind of getting off topic here, but think you understand what I am getting at.

I came across this post called if Conservatives have their way, along my journey and would really like your input on it. Although I didn't agree with most of it, there were some things that made me go hmm. I consider myself a Conservative, but what that means to you and what that means to me, may be two totally different things. Knowledge is a strong tool and one that I strive for. The farther I get into politics the more I take away from different viewpoints. And I look forward to hearing yours. What makes you a Conservative? What makes you a Libertarian? What makes you a Liberal?


The TrekMedic adds:

Works for me,....

Labels: , ,

Sunday, January 13, 2008

The TrekMedic is a Blogger of the World!


A big HT and huge thanks to Jenn for thinking of the TrekMedic:


Trekmedic251's Is this Life? is a hometown blogger I love to read. Whether it's politics, the Phila teams, (go Flyers), the idiot mayor, or about stupid liberals at their best. I relate to his blog so much because the locals he writes about also affect me and mine. (even though we are a bridge apart) He blogs about anything and everything is totally enjoyable to read.


That said,..I'd like to award Wyatt and Captain America - both are Philadelphia civil servants (police and fire, respectively) and blog about the byzantine workings of the city government from an insider's perspective. And Wyatt's blogging has gotten him national attention, although he's too modest to talk about it!

I also award BobG at Sweet Spirits of Ammonia- Bob blogs from Arizona, along the frontlines of our immigration problem.

And I can't forget Tony Phyrillas - Tony is a rare bird - a conservative journalist in Pennsylvania! Tony blogs about a wide variety of subjects and has the pulse of the rest of the Commonwealth!

Finally, I want to award all of the contributing bloggers at Red November 2008 blog. We're small in number and we don't have the financial backing of the likes of George Soros, but we ARE making a difference!

Feel free to pass the award along to a few deserving souls!

Labels: , ,

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Is the Inky Finally Getting on the RIGHT Track?


PHILADELPHIA - Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, a Pennsylvania Republican known for his conservative positions, will begin writing a column for The Philadelphia Inquirer starting in early November.

Called the "The Elephant in the Room," the column will be featured in the Inquirer's opinion pages on alternating Thursdays.

Santorum, who lost to Democrat Bob Casey in last year's election, will write about a variety of topics ranging from America's culture wars to its struggles around the globe. Only occasionally will Santorum write about politics.

"This is not a punditry column," he said Wednesday. "This is an opportunity to start talking about bigger things than what Hillary said this week or what Obama said last week or what Rudy did last week."

Santorum, who often complained about how he was treated in the press, also quipped: "If you can't beat them, join them."

Santorum is a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington and a consultant to a Pittsburgh law firm.

The Inquirer also gave a column to George Curry, the colorful, left-leaning former editor-in-chief of Emerge magazine. Curry, who already writes a syndicated column that reaches 200 African-American newspapers, will also write on alternating Thursdays.

"The purpose of the newspaper is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable," Curry said. "That's exactly what I plan to do."


The TrekMedic adds:

WOW!

While we're at it, Tony Phyrillas notes that ANOTHER Conservative paper is joining the ranks in PA. You can read about it here.

Labels: ,