As if the United Nations itself isn't bad enough, when the United Nations decides to host a conference on racism .. you know that you are in for some brilliant international diplomacy. Congratulations in order for Barack Obama for his decision not to attend this year's conference on racism. The UN has hosted these forums before, and they've turned out to be nothing less than an occasion for various half-baked dictators and demagogues to rant against Israel and the United States. When you invite Iran's Ahmadininutjob to the party, you know that you are in for some trouble.

Ahmadinejad did not fail to disappoint. He took this racism conference as an opportunity to lash out against Israel and the United States. He said that the Holocaust was a "pretext" for aggression, Israel is a "racist" nation and the Western world is responsible for the current financial crisis. He added that "world Zionism personifies racism."

Folks, what else did you expect? This is nothing new. We know that this mad Muslim, Ahmadinejad, has about as many loose screws as Kim Jong-Il. And you expect this guy to engage in a lucid and constructive discussion on international race relations? If that doesn't make you lose faith in the United Nations, I just don't know what to tell you.

Some Western nations had the gonads to walk out on Ahmadinejad's speech. Good. If Obama had been there, I would hope to Hillary that he would have done the same.

Now we learn that the Congressional Black Caucus is upset that the United States wasn't at the conference. They sincerely believe that this UN summit is a legitimate avenue for addressing global racism. Just last week the CBC was down there in Cuba vying for the opportunity to plant their collective lips on Fidel's wrinkled old ass. These are your elected politicians, folks. These are people that you are putting into office. Not some Islamic goon. These are your representatives saying that they believe it was wrong for the United States to have boycotted this conference and that this is a legitimate way to address racism.

Jon Sinton was the president of Air America. Air America was a miserable failure. Nobody likes to be at the controls of miserable failure. Sucks to be Sinton. So, it would seem that Jon Sinton is lashing out ... lashing out at talk radio. Against the advice of several friends I'm putting a link to Sinton's screed here. If you must, read this! Caution: Sinton has been stung. His ego is bruised and he is lashing out at those evil conservative talk shows that decimated his baby.

OK .. did you read it? Fun, don't you think! Since Sinton was unable to talk you into listening to his liberal talk show hosts, he's now begging you to quite listening to those disgusting conservatives. Sinton really needs to get some original material. You certainly noticed the liberal (pun intended) use of the word "hate." Now there's a big surprise! Sinton was really showing his originality there. Let's see; we have "spool up the hate," "hateful talkers," "hate and fear", "politics of hate" and "mastered hate." Sinton also brainstormed and came up with "spew venom", "incite violence" and "fear mongering." I've been telling you for a while now that the left likes to run out the "hate" word whenever they're presented with an idea, a thought or a critique for which they have no ready-made response. By attaching the "hate" word to the idea you can't logically refute you allow yourself to walk away from the conversation imagining you are taking the high road when you're actually taking the coward's escape route.

Sinton also came up with some statistics in his column. He says "The dirty little secret of right-wing talk radio is that the audience is largely male, almost exclusively white and averages 67 years of age." He cites no research, expecting us to take these figures at face value. Sorry ... no can do.

As a matter of fact, I have some figures that I'll actually source for you! These numbers come from the Talk Radio Research Project â„¢ published in Talker's Magazine. Talker's has been gathering these statistics for many years now, so they're worth a look. Let's go through a few Sinton points from his whiney little column and compare them to the real world:

• Sinton says the audience is "largely male." Talker's says that the audience is 57% male and 43% female. If that counts as "largely male" than I'm largely handsome.
   
• Then Sinton says that the audience is "almost exclusively white." Hmmmm. The Talker's research shows the talk radio audience to be 63% white, 20% black and 10% Hispanic. This would mean that blacks listen to talk radio in numbers larger than their share of the U.S. population. Largely white? Yes .. but with an overrepresentation of black listeners. I can understand why Sinton left that little goodie out. Doesn't fit well into his imaginary world.
   
• The audience "averages 67 years of age." A little ageism there, but let's check the Talker's research. The audience breakdown shows that 63% of the talk radio listening audience is between 24 and 64 years old. Twenty-eight percent of the listeners are older than 55 and of that group only 7% are over 65. Nine percent and younger than 15. The numbers for my show skew even younger. Clearly I'm no math whiz, but how can the average age of talk radio listeners be 67 when only 7% of the listeners are over 65? This sounds rather like the way liberals and Democrats compute poverty statistics. It also sounds like Sinton's a liar. Poor guy .. just can't get over his failures.

Let's take it easy on Jon Sinton. He had some mighty high expectations for Air America, his liberal talk radio project. It went bankrupt within two years. I'm sure that did a hell of a lot for his resume. Now he runs a state news service that nobody has ever heard of. It didn't take long for him to realize that radio listeners just weren't going to tune in to his illogical dog squeeze. There just wasn't enough Boy's Club money to embezzle to make it work.

Yesterday Barack Obama met with his cabinet members. The big story to get from this is the fact that Obama requested his cabinet agencies to trim a collective $100 million off their budgets.

Is it just me, or is anyone else slightly insulted by this?

Come on, folks! Let's get real here. Obama says that he is going to go line by line and streamline the budget .. and all he can come up with is $100 million? Folks, we are talking about a man who has proposed a budget worth $3.6 trillion. We are talking about a government that currently holds a $1.2 trillion deficit. And he asks his entire cabinet to trim $100 million?

Think about it like this ... that is 1/36,000 of the money Obama plans to spend next year. Or as this article puts it, "if the budget were a yardstick, the administration would be proposing to shorten it by 1/1000 of an inch. That's 25.4 microns, or about half the width of a human hair." I think I can do a better job of showing you just how little money this is. Let's say that you are a 300 pound lardass. You want to lose weight. How much weight would you lose if you reduced your massive quivering bulk by the same percentage Obama is proposing reducing next year's spending? Answer: Just a hair over 13/100ths of one stinking ounce. (0.13333 oz.) Wow! Now you don't have to ask for that seat belt extender any more!

So he says that the money is going to add up. Ok, so when is he going to request more cuts? Are there plans for more cuts? Is this just lip-service? What focus group told the Obama administration that $100 million was the magic number that will restore confidence in the American people? "If you show the people that you can cut $100 million from the budget, they are going to believe that you are handling their tax dollars with care!"

For everyone who got out there on tax day and attended a rally, whether it was a tea party or a FairTax rally ... is this what you wanted? Is this really going to bridge the "confidence gap" that the Obama administration speaks of?

Yeah, didn't think so.

So now we are going to go through a quick list of things that you could get for $100 million.

• $100 million is the equivalent of 402,000 iPods
• 2.16 million barrels of oil
• 4,500 Toyota Prius cars
• 5,000,000 eyebrow waxing appointments for Nancy Pelosi ... and a Brazilian thrown in just to get her out of the salon.
• Less than one-quarter of the budget increase that Congress awarded to itself.
• 4 percent of the military aid the United States sends to Israel.
• Less than half the cost of one F-22 fighter plane.
• 7 percent of the federal subsidy for the money-losing Amtrak passenger rail system.
• 1/10,000th of the government's operating budgets for Cabinet agencies, excluding the Iraq and Afghan wars and the stimulus bill.

So .. $100 million might mean something to you, but it means absolutely nothing to government. Obama's silly little publicity stunt with this $100 million nonsense shows either how out of touch he is with federal budget realities, or it shows how ignorant he believes the American people to be. You choose.

Jamie Dupree is fond of illustrating just how bad our budget situation is. We could eliminate every bit of discretionary spending in the federal budget and still be so deep in the tank we would not be able to see daylight ... and the spending is only going up. You could also levy a 99% income tax on every penny earned over $500,000 and all you would accomplish is to send waves of unbridled sensual joy through the hearts of the wealth envy crowd out there.

There is one way out of this ... one way short of government tyranny. We can grow the private sector economy. It was economic growth that wiped out much of our debt during the dot.com boom, and it will have to be economic growth again. The trouble is we now have an administration that only believes in growing government. Government doesn't produce wealth. Government seizes wealth. Growing government while damning the private sector only makes our problems worse. Now ... try to explain this to some government-educated young person who, like, voted, you know, for, like, change.

Now we are getting all of these reports about the fact that CIA interrogators used ... brace yourself .. waterboarding on Khalid Sheik Mohammed - the Islamic goon who admitted to planning the attacks of September 11th. And not only did they use waterboarding, but they used it 183 times! The horror!

The question all along has been: why has the Obama administration decided to release these memos now. Why? What purpose does it serve?

Dick Cheney brought up a good point. He points out that the Obama administration didn't bother to release the memos showing the success of these CIA efforts. He doesn't bother to release any information that show how many American lives were saved or the realities of any consequences of planned attacks. Of course he wouldn't, because that would legitimize the use of these techniques to save American lives. Obama is interested in building himself up in international eyes as some paragon of virtue .. the man that will bring the United States out of the dark ages of dungeons and torture to join the rest of civilized society.

OK .. bottom line time again. Let's talk torture. If someone has the information that could save thousands of lives -- OK .. just one life -- and if you had a reasonable expectation that you could get that information from this guy by pulling out his fingernails or (gasp!) pouring water on his face ... and if you didn't do it ... then you are every bit as worthless as he is.

Has our socialist President figured out a backdoor method for nationalizing the banks?

Did you see the stock market yesterday? The headline is that investors are worried about banks. Gee, ya think? Nothing like a government-owned banking industry to encourage the private sector. Imagine when loan approvals have a PC element.

Do you think that this had anything to do with it .. the fact that banks want out of this government TARP nonsense?

The big question on everyone's mind in regards to Obama releasing the Bush memos is ... why now? To build up the Obama image, that's why.

California regulators may rule that biofuels may actually be worse for the environment.

Tell me ... is this what Barack Obama meant by earmark reform? Seems as though things are politics as usual.

Here's some of the breakdown of the aftermath from the tea parties. The "political class" doesn't seem too thrilled about the protests.

The Supreme Court is going to decide whether or not prosecutors can be sued. Leave this up to the Democrats and they'll be sure to do the right thing for trial lawyers.

This shouldn't come as a shock to you, but men are bearing the brunt of job losses in this economy.

Just a bit of an update on one of the many ways Democrats seek to thank trial lawyers for their support.

In case you didn't know this already .... Lardasses contribute more to global warming!

Have you noticed the biggest news of the week so far? What that Miss USA contestant had to say about gay marriage.

And now for a list of the most popular words that the federal government has used on Twitter in the last month.

Well, since the media love to celebrate an anniversary .. .and this week Columbine seems to be the anniversary of choice, perhaps you ought to read this.

Read this article about Keith Olbermann and Jeanane Garofalo ... and then tell me these Liberals are sane. Garofalo on "24?" WTF?