L.A. Headlines — May 15

Today’s Los Angeles stories at Examiner.com.

• Los Angeles in brief: Hospital fined for snooping on Octomom
• Man guilty of selling body parts
• L.A. County to begin checking immigration status of jail inmates
• Last Santa Barbara fire evacuation orders lifted
• Los Angeles in brief: LAUSD back in court to block teachers union
• Dying Farrah Fawcett in middle of legal fight

Perez Hilton attacks homophobe President Obama

President Obama topless. Who’s the boob now?

Gay activists, led by blogger Perez Hilton, were up in arms today after President Barack Obama said he opposed gay marriage.

Actually, Obama said that months ago, but Hilton just found out after hearing it from Donald Trump on Tuesday.

Hilton immediately swished into action with his usual gentlemanly flair, calling President Obama a “dumb bitch” on his blog.

Asked whether that was an appropriate thing to call the president, Hilton said, “I actually meant to call him the c-word, but I can’t spell it.”

But that didn’t stop the blogger from proclaiming that Obama must go.

“I want to snatch the crown right from his head,” Hilton said.

---

SATIRE

---

Adding fuel to the controversy was the revelation by the gossip mongers at TMZ that Obama, generally considered an upstanding guy, had actually posed for several topless photos, but had not noted that on his application to run for president.

Officials at the Miss California USA pageant were holding an urgent meeting to determine if they should take back their November votes for Obama. Pageant co-director Shanna Moakler, taking a break during a nude photo shoot for Playboy magazine, said, “It’s normally not our place to tell other people what they can believe, but what the heck? We don’t need a president who’s running around topless. Besides, he has to represent all the people, not just the ones who can get married.”

Asked if it wouldn’t offend some straight, married couples if Obama supported gay marriage, Moakler said, “I’m sure it would, but that’s OK. We need to have diversity in America, and those people can just shut up and go someplace else.”

In urging the president to give up his crown, Moakler and co-director Keith Lewis appointed the presidential runner-up, John McCain, to be “Beauty America Ambassador” and fulfill Obama’s ceremonial duties.

Asked about the topless photos of Obama, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said some of the pictures in question had been taken during a windy day, in between events at a regularly scheduled photo shoot. He said another, earlier topless photo of Obama had been taken by his wife, Michelle, as part of his application for the U.S. Senate and had not been intended for publication.

Emanuel said he didn’t see anything wrong with the photos and that, even though some were more risque than others, “some are quite beautiful, actually. In fact, I blew up one of them to life-size for my bedroom wall.”

Hilton, Moakler and Lewis weren’t accepting any explanations, however, and petitioned for Miss USA pageant owner Donald Trump to decide whether Obama should be stripped of his title.

At a press conference today, Trump’s only comment was, “You people really need to get a life.”

Obama nation: ‘Told ya’ time yet?

Liberals truly live in a different universe than the rest of us.

Obama still hasn’t been sworn into office and his Congress and future administration have now upped the total bailout package to $8.5 trillion, by some estimates.

But who’s counting?

No one, obviously.

Since magical numbers like “trillion” don’t register with most people, I’ll just point out that our entire gross domestic product is only around $14 trillion or so. In other words, well over half of everything we will make, create or sell here in the United States in the next year is already marked for spending on bailouts.

Just to put this in perspective for the anti-war hippy crowd: Your party has already spent on bailouts THIS YEAR more than what the United States has spent on all major wars combined EVER, according to the Congressional Research Service.

To Democrats, this preliminary stealing of two-thirds of our money is called a “stimulus” plan.

Mind you, Princess Pelosi and Duke Reid haven’t yet gotten to spending on things the government is supposed to be doing, like defending this nation. And they haven’t touched their or Obama’s other wish list items, like saving the world from the dreaded global warming, or giving away hundreds of billions of dollars to try to make foreign countries like us, or that mandatory-service youth Energy Corps that will be as well-funded as the Army, or even that “net tax decrease” for 95 percent of Americans.

Anyone with two functioning neurons knows the Democrats’ plans won’t work, and they are marching our country into bankruptcy.

But, the electorate that voted for “change” and “hope” over experience and common sense is merrily walking off the cliff at the urging of their pied piper, Barack Obama.

With the entire future of the country crumbling even before Barack Hussein Obama is sworn in, what is the party that cares’ big concern? That a pro-life, pro-marriage pastor is giving the invocation at the inauguration — in other words, that the man who pals around with terrorists may have betrayed liberals’ trust.

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

Atheists try to steal Christmas again

It’s the annual battle to strike down Christians as Atheists use the government to force their bile into Christmas displays across the land. This week, the news has been about the Atheists’ sign planted next to a Nativity scene in Olympia, Wash. They obtained a state permit to plant a sign that says, in part, “At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. … There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Every year, we hear about these sorts of fights over public displays. What always gets overlooked, with the fervent encouragement of the atheists themselves, is that atheism most definitely is a religion. Atheists will deny that, try to disprove it, and frankly outright lie about it, but it’s the truth. Atheists do not want people to think of them as a religion because, a) it might scare off new recruits, like if the Moonies admitted being a cult; b) it would hinder their goal of forcing Christianity out of American public life, because then such tactics would be seen for what they are — atheists’ version of evangelization.

And let’s face it, they’ve got a great line: How could they be a religion if they don’t believe in God? Well, Buddhism and Taoism don’t require belief in any god either, but no one doubts they are religions. In fact, in the broadest sense, “religion” doesn’t require any particular belief or behavior. The characteristics of the multitude of religions, both organized and personal, around the world are so varied that the only thing you can say universally is that all religions are a moral response to a person’s belief about the ultimate nature of the universe.

Do atheists have a belief about the ultimate nature of the universe? Yup. Does that belief lead them to derive a moral code by which they live (misguided though it may be)? Yup. All the other stuff is gravy … and atheists have a lot of gravy, too. Do they evangelize? And how! Do they have a belief about the end of the world? Walk into a global warming convention and ask how many are atheists. … You’ll be surprised. Do they have a story about the origin and purpose of humanity? Written by the Rev. Charles Darwin! Do atheists have required dogmatic beliefs? Try telling an atheist you don’t believe evolution holds water … or global warming … or that abortion should be allowed except in cases of medical necessity where the mother’s life is threatened. (Seriously, even if you don’t believe any of the above, just try play-acting the part … it’s revealing.) Do they have sacred texts? Scores of them, chiefly Darwin! Do they have communal groups whose central organizing rationale is their united belief? I could name a dozen groups off the top of my head. Do they have regular meetings to practice, strengthen and discuss their beliefs? Absolutely! Do other groups recognize them as a religion? The federal census, U.S. military chaplains, most (non-liberal) Christians, and federal courts. In fact, the Supreme Court itself has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.
So, since atheism clearly is a religion, what we have in these types of conflicts is usually a state-endorsed hate crime by one religion (Atheism) against another (Christianity). Think about it. If, say, a group of Christians demanded to put a display about the Bible smack in the middle of, say, a Buddhist holiday festival, it would be seen through right away as a rather cynical effort to prevent the Buddhists from exercising their rights. Now if Christians and Buddhists happened to have legitimate holidays on the same day, and both wanted the public square, don’t you think the rational response would be to separate the two groups? That way, everyone gets to exercise their freedom to express their religion without stepping on anyone else’s toes. That would be fair.

Yet somehow, the atheists, by virtue of their phony status as “non-religion,” get to stick their signs all over our Christmas displays. Now if the atheists really had a holiday at the same time, then they should be able to put up their own display, but at the other end of the park. Again, that would be fair. But since they want to play the game of saying they are not a religion, then they logically cannot have any holidays, and they certainly have no business destroying anyone else’s. You can’t have it two ways: Either the atheists admit they are a religion and play by the same rules as every other religion, or they pretend they are not a religion, and they have no more right to touch our Christmas displays than does the Lions Club or the local bowling league. If they are not a religion, then they have no religious sensibilities to offend.

Obama nation: Birth certificate goes to SCOTUS

Oh, those pesky questions about Barack Obama’s past. They just don’t go away.

And now, despite best efforts by liberals in the press, on the Net and across the land, one of those nagging questions has landed in the Supreme Court’s lap.

This Friday, Dec. 5, the Supreme Court justices will confer on whether to hear the lawsuit brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the New Jersey secretary of state, that questions whether Obama meets the criteria of being a “natural-born citizen” required of a candidate for president.

The president-elect has only himself to blame for this issue having gone this far. He had every opportunity during the campaign and since to produce a legitimate birth certificate, as opposed to the incomplete computer printout posted on his Web site and taken as gospel by his devotees.

The justices could reject the case and nothing will come of all this, but it will only take four of the nine justices to decide to hear arguments, in which case Obama will finally have to take at least one of the questions about his past, and the voters who have asked them, seriously.

Obama nation: $7 trillion and change, we hope

He’s not even sworn in yet, and Obama, through his Democratic allies in Congress has already racked up a $7 trillion spending spree.

Now, one of the big points Obama tried to make during his campaign was that he was going to bring “change” to D.C. after the Bush administration, which he characterized as giving tax breaks to “the rich” and ignoring the middle class.

I recall getting a check from the Bush administration, which is more than I ever got from any other president. It wasn’t a lot, I would have preferred the whole amount they stole from my paycheck that year (less than under Clinton, by the way), and of course the government, with its usual foresight and planning, borrowed the money to give it to me. But despite those caveats, there it was, an actual tax cut to little ol’ middle class folks.

Now that the election’s over, what’s Obama doing? Resurrecting the Clinton Administration and pushing Congress for $7 trillion in bailouts, promises and programs — and this is for starters. So far, I have not heard that any of that money will be put in my pocket. Instead it’s going to “bail out” unions and corporations that should be allowed to go bankrupt.

In other words, it’s a tax break for “the rich” that far exceeds anything Bush ever dreamed of doing.

Our entire country’s gross domestic product is $14 trillion. The federal budget for 2008 was about $2.6 trillion. Since government can only raise money by taxing its population or printing money, if this $7 trillion figure solidifies — or grows — then the Obama Administration will have to either crush our economy with taxes three times as high as they are now, or it will have to print such vast sums of money as to make the dollar about as valuable as the peso. Even if Obama were to eliminate the military, he couldn’t pay for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s spending list.

Neither raising taxes nor printing money will work, as such a plan will either raise unemployment to sky-high levels (in which case there will be no one to tax) or it will raise consumer costs to the level of pre-war Nazi Germany’s infamous wheelbarrow full of money for an egg.

The other ramifications of this kind of insanity would be numerous, but they all would add up to the same thing: The United States of America would collapse and be unable to defend itself.

Some people (mostly in Berkeley and San Francisco) would like to see that happen because they think then we’d be like some European countries, smoking pot, having sex (with whomever and whatever) and collecting welfare all day long.

But such a liberal paradise wouldn’t last long. Without even trying, I can think of a dozen countries that would likely move in to carve up our country in such an event. None of them has high tolerance for pot-smoking liberals.

So, apparently, when Obama was talking about “hope and change we can believe in,” apparently he meant that we all of us can just hope we’ll have some change left in our pockets, not to mention a country, by the time he’s done. You can believe in that.

Obama Hamas contacts confirmed

Some folks may recall during the presidential campaign that Barack Obama was obliged to fire an adviser named Robert Malley because it came out that he had met previously with Hamas.

The campaign promptly distanced itself from Malley and denied having any connections with Hamas. Liberals suggested that all those Hamas-Obama stories were just made up by evil conservative types because, hey, we’re evil conservatives, and the Obamessiah wouldn’t do anything nasty like consort with terrorists, foreign or domestic.

The truth will out. … Now comes news that Hamas spokesman Ahmed Yousef said Tuesday in al Hayat newspaper that he had contact with Obama staffers during the campaign. From the Toronto Globe and Mail:

“We were in contact with a number of Obama’s aides through the Internet, and later met with some of them in Gaza, but they advised us not to come out with any statements, as they may have a negative effect on his election campaign and be used by Republican candidate John McCain (to attack Obama),” Yousef said in an interview with London-based Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat, published Tuesday.

Apparently, Mr. Malley wasn’t so fired after all.

Obama advisers are denying that such meetings ever occurred, but the Toronto Globe and Mail reports that Ayman abu Leilah, a spokesman for Yousef, confirmed his statements and added details. Leilah said the most recent meeting (suggesting there may have been more than one) took place in October, “one month before the election.”

Leilah said that Yousef knew some of Obama’s people for years, since the time he was studying in the United States.

Yousef said the Obama connection is “ongoing.”

Liberals at this point will no doubt shrug their shoulders and say “So what? Obama’s a rock star and I want to get pregnant with his baby.”

Rational people who love the law and America might react a little differently because: a, Obama lied; b, Obama lied about his contact with terrorists; c, Obama was apparently negotiating with a foreign power before he was president and legally allowed to do so; d, Obama’s people told Hamas to keep the meeting secret because they knew it could lose him the election, thus he manipulated the election process; e, we’re supposed to be fighting a war against terrorists, and Obama is playing footsies with them; f, people with intelligence already knew Obama’s a dangerous scumbag, and the numbskull majority now have put him in power.

I’m still hoping that Obama doesn’t live up to my expectations, but so far, he shows every sign that he’s going to. American voters decided they wanted “change.” But as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, because you might get it.

Obama nation: Feeling stimulated yet?

Hope and Change, Day 3:

Expectations lowering in 3, 2, 1 …: Obama delivered the bad news (which people who voted against him knew six months ago) — it may take a while to get our economy back on track. He also announced his first priority was to get Congress to pass an economic “stimulus” plan featuring:

• Extended jobless benefits
• Food aid to the poor
• Medicaid funds to states
• Tens of billions of dollars for public works projects

Note that none of the above actually “stimulates” the economy, but only puts a Band-Aid on some particular issues, thus extending them without doing anything to solve them.

“Ya Think?” Award: Newsweek’s Evan Thomas and Jon Meacham chatted with Charlie Rose about their mutual love affair with B. Hussein. Meacham said he was “very struck watching the stagecraft” during Obama’s victory speech and how he was struck by the lack of supporting characters: “…[H]ave you ever seen a victory speech where there was no one else on stage? No adoring wife, no cute kid — he is the message.” Thomas then came out with this observation: “There is a slightly creepy cult of personality about all of this.” Rose confronted about the phrase, and Thomas said he was “a little uneasy that he’s so singular. He’s clearly managing his own spectacle. He knows how to do it. He’s a — I think, a deeply manipulative guy. …” To which I can only say, HELLO! ANYBODY IN THERE? … Time to change the oil, guys.

The low-down on the up-down: Obama’s speech today did nothing to rally the market, which went down, down, down until the last hour or so, when the bargain hunters rescued the Dow amid rumors of another Fed rate cut.

Suspended sentence: Double-secret probation continues for Joe Lieberman, who may or may not be cut loose by the Democrats, depending on whether they can steal four more seats in the Senate to give themselves a veto-proof supermajority. If not, I predict Lieberman will still be a hanger-on at the Democrat frat house.

Obama nation: The enemies list emerges

Change and Hope, Day Two:

In the cross hairs: Sen. Joe Lieberman, who votes with the Democrats on everything except defense, is Public Enemy No. 1 for Harry Reid and the “post-partisan” liberals, who want to strip him of his chairmanship, give him one of the crappy offices and take back his lunch pass for the congressional buffet. His crime? He said Obama was inexperienced and John McCain was a better candidate. Any comment from Obama? Nope, he’s too busy hiring Clinton staffers. Glad to see we’re changing that tone. (And can’t wait for the war crimes trials.)

Those who know: The American public voted Obama into office on the theory that he alone can fix the economy. The reaction of Wall Street? A two-day plunge of 929.49 points in the Dow, the worst two-day percentage drop since 1987 and the biggest two-day point drop in the 112-year history of the Dow, according to the Journal. Gee, could this have something to do with Obama possibly, maybe, just perhaps being the eensiest bit socialist? Hmmm. …

Just words: Retailers report the worst October sales since 1971, putting in doubt some chains’ survival, despite Obama’s and the Democrats’ $700 billion bailout. People just aren’t spending. Couldn’t have anything to do with all that “worst crisis since the Great Depression” talk, now could it? Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes true. And if there’s one thing Democrats are good at, it’s deepening an economic crisis: FDR, Carter, now Obama. Not a good start there, Barry, and as Bush learned before he was sworn in, it’s always the president-elect’s fault.

P.S., no preconditions: Well, Iran’s President Ahmadinejad sent his congratulations to Obama. Somehow, B. Hussein just makes him feel comfortable. Along with the congrats came some friendly advice, just some suggestions (courtesy BBC):

Mr Ahmadinejad said Americans expected the government to “rectify the critical situation facing the US, restore lost reputation as well as their hope and spirit, fully respect human rights and strengthen family foundations”.

He continued: “Other nations also expect war-oriented policies, occupation, bullying, contempt of nations and imposing discriminatory policies on them to be replaced by the ones advocating justice, respect for human rights, friendship and non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs.

“They also want US intervention to be limited to its [own] borders, especially in the Middle East. It is highly expected to reverse the unfair attitude towards restoring the rights of the Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghans.

“The great nation of Iran welcomes basic and fair changes in US policies and conducts, especially in the region,” President Ahmadinejad said.

Summarized, I’m-a-dinner-jacket’s list reads as “kiss my ring, my secret Muslim brother, and we can divide up Israel together.”

Obama nation: You can keep your ‘change’

Change and Hope, Day One:

Some change: President-elect Obama, the first Kenyan (Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki: The victory of Senator Obama is our own victory because of his roots here in Kenya.) to win the Oval Office, taps as his first transition appointee Clinton alumnus Rahm Emanuel for his chief of staff. Ah, can’t you just taste the change?

Some hope: In his victory speech, Obama called for “a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice.” But only from “the rich,” right? Not on your life: “a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.” Can you say “spread the wealth?”

Some warm fuzzies: Among the many people around the world ecstatic that America is going to get off their backs and start giving them money, congratulations came in from Cuba’s Fidel Castro: “(Obama) is without a doubt more intelligent, cultured and composed than his Republican adversary.” Also, Hugo Chavez was pleased by America’s choice:

Agence France Press

If Obama gets elected, there would be “a small light on the horizon” regarding US-Venezuela relations.

“I hope Obama himself powers that light on,” (Chavez) said, predicting that he would “win by a landslide.”

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega called Obama’s election “a miracle.” The editors of Pravda, the Russian (Soviet) newspaper, were practically wetting their pants with glee. Hamas was more reserved, but nonetheless issued an informal list of “he musts” and “we wants” that the Hamas leaders expect Obama to heed. (Guess they’re not shy about setting preconditions on all that talking Obama expects to be doing.) That’s how you really know you’ve picked the right president, when all the bad guys of the world approve of your choice. …

Did someone say “international crisis”? Why, I believe Joe Biden ordered one to follow-up Obama’s election. Didn’t take long. The day after the vote, Russia announced that it was moving its missiles up close to Poland, and it blamed the U.S. for the Russians’ war in Georgia. Putin wants us to stop defending Eastern Europe. The European Union wants to talk to Putin. Here’s your chance, Mr. President-elect, for one of those heart-to-heart chats without preconditions.