So, I'm relieved to say the Dream Act - the bill that would provide citizenship for illegal immigrant offspring if they go to college or join the military - failed.
My growing dislike for the act came from one place: I don't trust anything with a fluffy, positive acronym. The Dream Act? It sounds like something I saw in Tijuana involving Louie Anderson and a tub of pudding. So, of course, the actual bill would be a let down.
Anyway, the name stands for "The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act," and that was the problem. It was a lousy bill based on a bunch of unfortunate words, that together, don't mean squat.
They were picked to spell "dream." That's it.
Now, I was for the Act, until I read up on it. Here's what I noticed:
-the idiotic qualification "if they go to college or join the military" equates sacrifice with reward. I'm all for giving citizenship for immigrants who defend our country -because that's awesome. But getting citizenship because you go to school? Seriously. Snoring in class is easy. War is hell.
-the age range for eligibility, even after it was dialed back - is still too broad (up to age 30), with the potential for lying so wide - that the act seems as porous as our border. It's like we're replacing a sieve, with a sieve.
But look - I'm for some kind of Dream Act, but not this one. Let's revamp legal immigration: first let's act like every other country (including Mexico) and secure our borders, then fix this Act. But to do that, we need to be honest. Stop tying lousy bills to emotional heartstrings. Call it what it is. This is about jobs, not diplomas. My suggestion, ditch the school crap, make the military the primary avenue for citizenship.
Make it a sequel. The Dream Act 2: Killing For A Green Card.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Up our ass one more time
Here we go again. We can call this the Democrats' last effort to tell us to perform a physical impossibility. This is one of the many reasons why we voted these suckers out of office ... we have a $1.27 trillion "omnibus" appropriations bill, packed to the gills with more spending and more earmarks. Oh and the darn thing is 2,000 pages long. Must be another one of those bills that we have to pass in order to find out what is in it. Unless you are chief doughboy Robert Gibbs, who believes that Congress is going to be pouring over all 2,000 pages, just like they did ObamaCare .. a remark which was met with laughter in the press gallery. So when reading the legislation, what might they find? This, for example, in one Senate version of the bill:
$80 million in grants to states and Indian tribes to preserve Pacific salmon
$13 million in clean water grants for rural and Alaskan native villages
$4 million for the Kentucky National Guard's marijuana eradication efforts
$8 million to help maintain the B-1 bomber fleet in his state
Now Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint are insisting that the bill be read in its entirety by the clerk on the Senate floor before a vote is held.
This is nothing short but a complete abuse of the taxpayers. This is politicians showing us who's really the boss. This is the Democrats getting in their last big kick in the voter's rear end before they lose control of the House. This is an outrage ... question is, are the voters paying attention? Will the Republicans fight back?
$80 million in grants to states and Indian tribes to preserve Pacific salmon
$13 million in clean water grants for rural and Alaskan native villages
$4 million for the Kentucky National Guard's marijuana eradication efforts
$8 million to help maintain the B-1 bomber fleet in his state
Now Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint are insisting that the bill be read in its entirety by the clerk on the Senate floor before a vote is held.
This is nothing short but a complete abuse of the taxpayers. This is politicians showing us who's really the boss. This is the Democrats getting in their last big kick in the voter's rear end before they lose control of the House. This is an outrage ... question is, are the voters paying attention? Will the Republicans fight back?
Monday, December 13, 2010
Not so fast Sanctuary City
So Tom Krattenmaker wrote a piece this week for USA Today, about Portland, Oregon being targeted by a Muslim terrorist. This gist: How could they bomb Portland! We're just a quirky place everyone loves!
Or at least, doesn't take seriously.
After the cliched warning to not rush to judgement, Tommy says, and I quote,
Why would Portland, of all places, be the site of a terror attack? The "People's Republic of Portland" - so dubbed for its liberal ways - seems so utterly different from New York, Mumbai, London, or the other places that one associates with terrorist attacks. Portland is so much smaller, light years from the figurative front lines.This is a laid-back city where the red-hot rhetoric around terrorism, Islam, the "ground zero mosque," and the like runs cooler.
So, because Portland's a leftwing haven with homemade fliers for guitar lessons stapled on every Peet's Coffee wall - terrorists should skip us, and focus only on the big, boring cities without all those great organic cafes. Heck, they probably don't use cloth bags or read Chomsky (stuff jihadists care about).
And since Portlanders find red meat topics like terrorism so unseemly - our enemies should totally dig us! We love Bill Moyers!
Damn, these folks are dumb. They think their behavior is at the root of other people's actions. And that, if you're nice, terrorists won't kill you.
These jacknuts don't get that no matter how liberal you are, you represent everything terrorists hate, and your touchy-feeliness only makes them hate your sogginess more. Your clogs don't help.
Trust me - terrorists have more respect for the "red-hot rhetoric" of Dick Cheney than a naval gazing goof like Tom. And closing your eyes to Islamic jihad, in favor of contemplating the dent in your consciousness is why the terrorists may come for you first.
Because you're annoying.
Or at least, doesn't take seriously.
After the cliched warning to not rush to judgement, Tommy says, and I quote,
Why would Portland, of all places, be the site of a terror attack? The "People's Republic of Portland" - so dubbed for its liberal ways - seems so utterly different from New York, Mumbai, London, or the other places that one associates with terrorist attacks. Portland is so much smaller, light years from the figurative front lines.This is a laid-back city where the red-hot rhetoric around terrorism, Islam, the "ground zero mosque," and the like runs cooler.
So, because Portland's a leftwing haven with homemade fliers for guitar lessons stapled on every Peet's Coffee wall - terrorists should skip us, and focus only on the big, boring cities without all those great organic cafes. Heck, they probably don't use cloth bags or read Chomsky (stuff jihadists care about).
And since Portlanders find red meat topics like terrorism so unseemly - our enemies should totally dig us! We love Bill Moyers!
Damn, these folks are dumb. They think their behavior is at the root of other people's actions. And that, if you're nice, terrorists won't kill you.
These jacknuts don't get that no matter how liberal you are, you represent everything terrorists hate, and your touchy-feeliness only makes them hate your sogginess more. Your clogs don't help.
Trust me - terrorists have more respect for the "red-hot rhetoric" of Dick Cheney than a naval gazing goof like Tom. And closing your eyes to Islamic jihad, in favor of contemplating the dent in your consciousness is why the terrorists may come for you first.
Because you're annoying.
Monday, December 06, 2010
The tax commission plan that failed was a FRAUD
On Friday, PrezBo's deficit commission voted on the proposal offered by co-chairmen Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. It didn't pass. It required 14 votes to force a vote in Congress. No cigar. Bowles and Simpson only managed to secure 11 votes. One of the "no" votes was labor union goon Andy Stern. He says that he voted against the proposal because he wants FEWER spending cuts and more tax increases. Sounds about right for a liberal, tax-and-spend union thug ... someone who really had no business serving on this commission in the first place. But ... when you're the number one White House visitor during the first year of Obama's presidency ... well, I guess you could see that one coming. However the most insulting thing is that they go through these Kabuki dances and get away with it because 98% of the American electorate is stupid about how they set the budget, base line accounting, automatic spending increases already legislated in and the fact that all of them are freaking weasels.
Now here's something you probably don't realize ... though you - we all - should have. The commission's deficit proposal doesn't even propose to cut spending! It only proposed to slow the rate of increasing spending . Nope ... not kidding. With the incredible increases we've seen in government spending over the past 10 years .. this grand commission of policy phoobahs couldn't come up with one single actual spending cut in one government agency. Now I ask you ... can you think of any private business that would have behaved this way if bankruptcy wasn't only in the cards, but perhaps inevitable?
Now ... before you star the emails pouring in ... let's talk about this spending cut thing. Our wonderful "leaders" in congress set up a nifty little scam years ago called the "baseline budget." Here's how it works. Virtually every government spending program has automatic built-in spending increases every single year. These spending increases may be based on inflation, the rate of population growth, or any number of economic or political considerations. The point is that these spending programs have scheduled spending increases built in every year.
How do politicians manipulate this? It's very easy. They vote to cut back the amount of a spending increase for any given year ... just the increase ... and then come to you and brag about how they are cutting spending. They're not cutting spending at all ... they're just slowing down the rate at which the spending is increasing. This is exactly what this seemingly worthless deficit commission did. The truth is Obama's deficit commission is actually proposing real spending increases over the next nine years that exceed the rate of inflation! Under the commission plan spending goes from $3.4 trillion today to $5.1 trillion in 2020.
Think about this! You now have the information you need to realize that this commission is a fraud. The commission was made up of the typical Washington politicians and parasites who have been sucking the taxpayers of this country dry for generations. OK ... I know the commission made some suggestions that some are calling bold ... like raising the Social Security retirement age. Yeah ... real bold. They raised the retirement age FOR TODDLERS. That's really sticking you neck out there.
This was NOT a serious effort at deficit reduction.
Look at some simple facts here on government spending:
How much do you think federal government spending increased during the George W. Bush administration? Let's try 83 percent. Now that comes pretty close to doubling federal spending during the Bush administration. Oh, you say, it was the TARP spending! Sorry ... take TARP out of it and you still have well over 70%.
And what about The Community Organizer? In just the first year under ObamaRule our federal sending increased by over 22 percent.
The point here is that the Imperial Federal Government has been growing spending year after year after year for most of our lives, and by huge amounts in the last ten years ... yet this august commission couldn't even manage to come up with a recommendation to cut the level --- the REAL level --- of federal spending by one single dollar. Come on now ... with these numbers in mind can any of you really suggest that this deficit commission was anything other than Obama window dressing? It was a fraud. A complete fraud. It was there to serve the ends of government, politicians and beltway lobbyists .. not for the purpose of serving the people of this country.
Allow me, dear readers, to share with you the thinking process here:
"Look. We know we're in trouble here .. and we know just how much trouble we're in. The thing is the people don't know how bad things are, and until they realize that we're facing a crisis that could completely rob their children and grandchildren of the American dream, we're pretty much free to give lip service to reform and continue with business as usual here."
Know what? They're right. If you really knew what today's politicians are doing to our future generations you would be hunting them down with pitchforks. But you don't, and they know you don't ... so it's pretty much going to be business as usual.
Not through yet ....
Here's something else you need to know about the deficit commission's proposal. This from the AP - and the liberals will hate this because it essentially validates Sarah Palin's warnings ..
For the first time, the government would set -- and enforce -- an overall budget for Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs that cover more than 100 million people, from Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes to premature babies in hospital intensive care.
Palin attracted wide attention by denouncing nonexistent "death panels" in Obama's overhaul, but a fixed budget as the commissioners propose could lead to denial of payment for medical care in some circumstances.
Overall, the nation will spend about $2.6 trillion this year on health care, and there's evidence that a significant share of that is for procedures and tests that are of little benefit to patients. There seems to be room enough to cut, but no consensus on what should go.
The Democrats are claiming this vote to be a success, because they've changed the dialogue in America. That made me true. But sooner or later you have to stop talking and start acting. They will be judged on their actions, not on their ability to talk.
Now here's something you probably don't realize ... though you - we all - should have. The commission's deficit proposal doesn't even propose to cut spending! It only proposed to slow the rate of increasing spending . Nope ... not kidding. With the incredible increases we've seen in government spending over the past 10 years .. this grand commission of policy phoobahs couldn't come up with one single actual spending cut in one government agency. Now I ask you ... can you think of any private business that would have behaved this way if bankruptcy wasn't only in the cards, but perhaps inevitable?
Now ... before you star the emails pouring in ... let's talk about this spending cut thing. Our wonderful "leaders" in congress set up a nifty little scam years ago called the "baseline budget." Here's how it works. Virtually every government spending program has automatic built-in spending increases every single year. These spending increases may be based on inflation, the rate of population growth, or any number of economic or political considerations. The point is that these spending programs have scheduled spending increases built in every year.
How do politicians manipulate this? It's very easy. They vote to cut back the amount of a spending increase for any given year ... just the increase ... and then come to you and brag about how they are cutting spending. They're not cutting spending at all ... they're just slowing down the rate at which the spending is increasing. This is exactly what this seemingly worthless deficit commission did. The truth is Obama's deficit commission is actually proposing real spending increases over the next nine years that exceed the rate of inflation! Under the commission plan spending goes from $3.4 trillion today to $5.1 trillion in 2020.
Think about this! You now have the information you need to realize that this commission is a fraud. The commission was made up of the typical Washington politicians and parasites who have been sucking the taxpayers of this country dry for generations. OK ... I know the commission made some suggestions that some are calling bold ... like raising the Social Security retirement age. Yeah ... real bold. They raised the retirement age FOR TODDLERS. That's really sticking you neck out there.
This was NOT a serious effort at deficit reduction.
Look at some simple facts here on government spending:
How much do you think federal government spending increased during the George W. Bush administration? Let's try 83 percent. Now that comes pretty close to doubling federal spending during the Bush administration. Oh, you say, it was the TARP spending! Sorry ... take TARP out of it and you still have well over 70%.
And what about The Community Organizer? In just the first year under ObamaRule our federal sending increased by over 22 percent.
The point here is that the Imperial Federal Government has been growing spending year after year after year for most of our lives, and by huge amounts in the last ten years ... yet this august commission couldn't even manage to come up with a recommendation to cut the level --- the REAL level --- of federal spending by one single dollar. Come on now ... with these numbers in mind can any of you really suggest that this deficit commission was anything other than Obama window dressing? It was a fraud. A complete fraud. It was there to serve the ends of government, politicians and beltway lobbyists .. not for the purpose of serving the people of this country.
Allow me, dear readers, to share with you the thinking process here:
"Look. We know we're in trouble here .. and we know just how much trouble we're in. The thing is the people don't know how bad things are, and until they realize that we're facing a crisis that could completely rob their children and grandchildren of the American dream, we're pretty much free to give lip service to reform and continue with business as usual here."
Know what? They're right. If you really knew what today's politicians are doing to our future generations you would be hunting them down with pitchforks. But you don't, and they know you don't ... so it's pretty much going to be business as usual.
Not through yet ....
Here's something else you need to know about the deficit commission's proposal. This from the AP - and the liberals will hate this because it essentially validates Sarah Palin's warnings ..
For the first time, the government would set -- and enforce -- an overall budget for Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs that cover more than 100 million people, from Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes to premature babies in hospital intensive care.
Palin attracted wide attention by denouncing nonexistent "death panels" in Obama's overhaul, but a fixed budget as the commissioners propose could lead to denial of payment for medical care in some circumstances.
Overall, the nation will spend about $2.6 trillion this year on health care, and there's evidence that a significant share of that is for procedures and tests that are of little benefit to patients. There seems to be room enough to cut, but no consensus on what should go.
The Democrats are claiming this vote to be a success, because they've changed the dialogue in America. That made me true. But sooner or later you have to stop talking and start acting. They will be judged on their actions, not on their ability to talk.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
With the stroke of a pen PrezBo is not sick anymore
Barack Obama is no longer suffering from a mental illness, according to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I'm not yanking your chain. This is not satire. Narcissistic personality disorder has been eliminated from the upcoming manual of mental disorders. How convenient. The disorder is said to be characterized by an inflated sense of self importance, a special kind of self-absorption described by the New York Times as "a grandiose sense of self, a serious miscalculation of one's abilities and potential that is often accompanied by fantasies of greatness." But that's not all. Those suffering from narcissistic personality disorder automatically expect that others will recognize his superior qualities and will tell him so often.
Sounding eerily familiar? We are talking about a man who referred to himself almost 1,200 times .. and that was just in speeches given in 2009! We are talking about a man's who wrote two autobiographies before accomplishing much of anything. We are talking about a man who rudely reminded John McCain during a bipartisan healthcare summit that the election was over and he (the great Obama) won.
Even though the medical community may no longer recognize narcissistic personality disorder as a mental disorder, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to spot one. Obama truly believes that he's the world's air freshener. Our country's one true hope is that with every day that passes a few more people out there realize what a mistake it was to take someone with no experience or and minimal qualifications and make him the president on the strength of five-word slogans and the ability to read words someone else put on a teleprompter.
Sounding eerily familiar? We are talking about a man who referred to himself almost 1,200 times .. and that was just in speeches given in 2009! We are talking about a man's who wrote two autobiographies before accomplishing much of anything. We are talking about a man who rudely reminded John McCain during a bipartisan healthcare summit that the election was over and he (the great Obama) won.
Even though the medical community may no longer recognize narcissistic personality disorder as a mental disorder, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to spot one. Obama truly believes that he's the world's air freshener. Our country's one true hope is that with every day that passes a few more people out there realize what a mistake it was to take someone with no experience or and minimal qualifications and make him the president on the strength of five-word slogans and the ability to read words someone else put on a teleprompter.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
This is a real letter and I already checked it out on Snopes. I wish I had written this beacuse it's exactly how I feel
"I'm 63 and I'm Tired"
by Robert A. Hall
I'm 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked hard since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.
I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.
I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.
I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe , the freedom of the press of China the crime and violence of Mexico , the tolerance for Christian people of Iran , and the freedom of speech of Venezuela .
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.
I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois.
I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less arrogantly of an all-knowing government.
I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but thinks that Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful; that thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress; that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his; that slammed Palin, with two years as governor, for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and mandrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America , while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I #@*# sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.
I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military.... Those are the citizens we need.
I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.
I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois , where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats has worked to loot the public for years. Not to mention the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet.
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.
Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.
I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.
Yes, I'm #@*% tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.
by Robert A. Hall
I'm 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked hard since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.
I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.
I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left-wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money.
I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the economy of Zimbabwe , the freedom of the press of China the crime and violence of Mexico , the tolerance for Christian people of Iran , and the freedom of speech of Venezuela .
I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christian and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an and Shari'a law tells them to.
I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone, and in the appointment of U.S. Senators from Illinois.
I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less arrogantly of an all-knowing government.
I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fundraising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but thinks that Obama's, at triple the cost, were wonderful; that thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress; that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his; that slammed Palin, with two years as governor, for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004.
I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and mandrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America , while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance.
I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough.
I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I #@*# sure think druggies chose to take drugs. And I'm tired of harassment from cool people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana.
I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic, and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person, who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare, or who serves honorably for three years in our military.... Those are the citizens we need.
I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people than themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear.
I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers; bums are bipartisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bipartisanship. I live in Illinois , where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats has worked to loot the public for years. Not to mention the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet.
I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor.
Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing.
I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination or big-whatever for their problems.
Yes, I'm #@*% tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to have to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughter.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Nobody checked his JUNK
Authorities managed to foil a plot over the weekend to kill perhaps hundreds of people at a Christmas tree lighting in Portland, Oregon. I'll give you a few guesses as to who plotted this terrorist attempt ...... was it a retired teacher with a colonoscopy bag? Was it a white female breast cancer survivor with a prosthetic breast? Was it a Jewish male who carries nail clippers in his pocket? Was it a three-year-old girl with Barbie backpack? Or ... was it a young Muslim male named Mohamed?
If you went with "young Muslim male named Mohamed" then you would be correct. Steam is coming out of your ears from all the amazing brain work, isn't it?
An actual Muslim! Another foiled terrorist attempt, plotted by a Muslim male who was doing his great service of Jihad in the cause of Allah.
We see deadly political correctness at work in at least two area here. First, of course, at airport screening. Even with his name of Mohamed Mohamud this Islamic goon would not have been singled out for any special attention at one of our airports. That would have been profiling! And no matter how many Americans must die we cannot single out people for special attention at airport security lines simply because they are clearly members of a group of people who, on a daily basis, express their desires to see as many of us dead as possible.
Just how many people do you think have died in this country as a result of political correctness thus far? How many more WILL die?
By the way ... this Islamic maniac's target was Portland, Oregon. In 2005 Portlnd decided not to allow Portland law enforcement officials to participate in key anti-terror efforts with the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. This is the same FBI that saved Portland's butt here. Now these Democrat "leaders" in Portland are saying that they may reverse their decision and start cooperating. Why? Well ... because now Barack Obama is in the White House.
Idiots.
If you went with "young Muslim male named Mohamed" then you would be correct. Steam is coming out of your ears from all the amazing brain work, isn't it?
An actual Muslim! Another foiled terrorist attempt, plotted by a Muslim male who was doing his great service of Jihad in the cause of Allah.
We see deadly political correctness at work in at least two area here. First, of course, at airport screening. Even with his name of Mohamed Mohamud this Islamic goon would not have been singled out for any special attention at one of our airports. That would have been profiling! And no matter how many Americans must die we cannot single out people for special attention at airport security lines simply because they are clearly members of a group of people who, on a daily basis, express their desires to see as many of us dead as possible.
Just how many people do you think have died in this country as a result of political correctness thus far? How many more WILL die?
By the way ... this Islamic maniac's target was Portland, Oregon. In 2005 Portlnd decided not to allow Portland law enforcement officials to participate in key anti-terror efforts with the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. This is the same FBI that saved Portland's butt here. Now these Democrat "leaders" in Portland are saying that they may reverse their decision and start cooperating. Why? Well ... because now Barack Obama is in the White House.
Idiots.
Don't get content oiver this Holiday time.
Happy Holidays! Are you in the Christmas spirit? Am I allowed to say "Christmas" anymore, or will be I shut down by the PC-police? But this period between Thanksgiving and Christmas is a time in which most Americans will tune out the politics. Their main concern is the latest sale at the local mall, rather than the shenanigans in Washington. Let me remind you that now is just as important a time to pay attention. We have some serious issues facing us within the next couple of weeks .. the main issue being the Bush tax cuts. We may also have the DREAM Act to contend with, along with budget battles, union butt kissing and more. But as the lame duck session of Congress continues to battle it out in Washington, you are probably under the impression that your job is done. You did your part in showing up to the polls in November. Wrong. Think about it like this: every dollar that you spend in the stores this holiday season is a dollar that the government has its eye on. The more of your money the government has, the more power the government has over you. While you're out there spending, saving, investing ... whatever ... the money you have worked for you need to remember that there are people in Washington who actually believe that they, not you, are the best people to spend that money. After all ... you belong to the government, right? You don't believe it, just ask them! It is the province of the politicians to determine just how all of these government assets are to be used to make life better for everyone in America. Assets? You, my friend. To many in Washington --- and I'm including no small number of Republicans here - you are nothing more than a government asset. You are to be permitted to keep as much of the wealth that you produce as is necessary to preserve the fiction of a free society. All it takes is just momentary lapses in attention ... those brief moments where you're more focused on jock sniffing and celebrity worship than you are on these people who can use force to accomplish their goals. Stay alert .. or 12 months from now the government will be exercising even more control over your life. There are votes to be bought, and your wealth is the currency.
Alright .. enough of the ranting and on to the warm and fuzzy fact of the day from the Weekly Standard. It has to do with those tax dollars, which the federal government is prepared to seize.
Over the past 20 years, the average interest rate the Treasury has had to pay on money it has borrowed has been 5.7%. But over the past year, the average rate has been 2.2%. That's no small difference given the size of our debt.
... if the current very low rate continues, and our fiscal policy basically follows the track laid out by the president's last budget, then the interest on the debt 10 years from now will be a little over $350 billion. If the rate goes back to the 20-year average, however, interest on the debt 10 years from now will be more like $1.15 trillion. Again, no small difference. Indeed, it is enough to make some prominent elements of our deficit debate seem a little ridiculous.
The increase in annual interest costs in 2015 alone--$557 billion--is nearly six times the additional revenue that is supposed to be collected by letting the higher end of the Bush tax cuts expire, the centerpiece of the current fiscal policy debate in Washington. The increase in interest costs in 2019--$795 billion--is two-and-a-half times the value of all the Bush income tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that are due to expire.
PrezBo, Nancy Pelosi and the general Democrat mantra is that we can't "afford" to let tax cuts continue for the evil rich. More appropriately, "We can't afford to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires." But even if you increase taxes on these evil rich people, it can't even come close to paying the interest on what the Democrats have spent over the last few years. We don't have a revenue problem, folks. We have a spending problem.
Alright .. enough of the ranting and on to the warm and fuzzy fact of the day from the Weekly Standard. It has to do with those tax dollars, which the federal government is prepared to seize.
Over the past 20 years, the average interest rate the Treasury has had to pay on money it has borrowed has been 5.7%. But over the past year, the average rate has been 2.2%. That's no small difference given the size of our debt.
... if the current very low rate continues, and our fiscal policy basically follows the track laid out by the president's last budget, then the interest on the debt 10 years from now will be a little over $350 billion. If the rate goes back to the 20-year average, however, interest on the debt 10 years from now will be more like $1.15 trillion. Again, no small difference. Indeed, it is enough to make some prominent elements of our deficit debate seem a little ridiculous.
The increase in annual interest costs in 2015 alone--$557 billion--is nearly six times the additional revenue that is supposed to be collected by letting the higher end of the Bush tax cuts expire, the centerpiece of the current fiscal policy debate in Washington. The increase in interest costs in 2019--$795 billion--is two-and-a-half times the value of all the Bush income tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that are due to expire.
PrezBo, Nancy Pelosi and the general Democrat mantra is that we can't "afford" to let tax cuts continue for the evil rich. More appropriately, "We can't afford to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires." But even if you increase taxes on these evil rich people, it can't even come close to paying the interest on what the Democrats have spent over the last few years. We don't have a revenue problem, folks. We have a spending problem.
Reality Bites IV
Country after country in Europe have had to be bailed out by the International Monetary Fund with help from more solvent nations. And in country after country we're seeing people in the streets demonstrating. Why are these countries facing these problems? Because they've gone into deep debt doing for people what the people should have been doing for themselves .. and because politicians everywhere realize the value of having huge workforces dependent on them for their livelihoods. Thus the demonstrations? "What do you mean I'm going to have to start fending for myself again? Are you kidding me? Hey .. I know my government job may not be all that essential, and I know that I'm getting paid more than I'm really worth to the taxpayers of this country ... but you're going to throw me under the bus now? You're going to cut my pay and my outrageous benefits now?
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Be afraid---Be very afraid..
Why do you go into business? OK .. seems a bit trite, I know. But seriously consider the question. I assume your response would be: to make money. But if you ask the Obama administration, people go into business in order to serve others, and there are times when the government can force your services on others and then dictate how much you are allowed to keep from providing those services. I am talking about health care .. ObamaCare.
Yesterday the Obama administration released details on a new regulation to go into effect January 1, 2012. It states that money collected from private health insurance premiums must go toward medical care, rather than overhead, administrative costs or - gawd forbid - profit. In fact, the government can now demand that you offer your customers a rebate if you collect too much in premiums that is not spent on medical care.
Here's how it is explained in the news reports ...
The healthcare law requires large group health plans to allocate at least 85 cents per premium dollar to medical care, not administrative costs or profit. Plans for individuals or small groups must spend 80 cents per dollar.
If plans do not spend at least that much on care, policy holders get a rebate. HHS said Monday up to 9 million Americans could be eligible for up to $1.4 billion in rebates starting in 2012.
Are you believing this, folks? The government is requiring that an industry spend 85% of its earnings on providing that service, leaving 15% left for everything else. What does "everything else" include? Administrative costs, marketing, taxes, commissions and profit! Among other things. A study released in 2006 found that "The private market administrative costs are expected to remain at about 9% of total private insurance cost, excluding premium taxes, commissions, and profit. With such items, private costs would be slightly under 17%." Folks, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with providing you better care at a better cost and everything to do with growing government and growing your dependency on government.
Yesterday the Obama administration released details on a new regulation to go into effect January 1, 2012. It states that money collected from private health insurance premiums must go toward medical care, rather than overhead, administrative costs or - gawd forbid - profit. In fact, the government can now demand that you offer your customers a rebate if you collect too much in premiums that is not spent on medical care.
Here's how it is explained in the news reports ...
The healthcare law requires large group health plans to allocate at least 85 cents per premium dollar to medical care, not administrative costs or profit. Plans for individuals or small groups must spend 80 cents per dollar.
If plans do not spend at least that much on care, policy holders get a rebate. HHS said Monday up to 9 million Americans could be eligible for up to $1.4 billion in rebates starting in 2012.
Are you believing this, folks? The government is requiring that an industry spend 85% of its earnings on providing that service, leaving 15% left for everything else. What does "everything else" include? Administrative costs, marketing, taxes, commissions and profit! Among other things. A study released in 2006 found that "The private market administrative costs are expected to remain at about 9% of total private insurance cost, excluding premium taxes, commissions, and profit. With such items, private costs would be slightly under 17%." Folks, this has absolutely NOTHING to do with providing you better care at a better cost and everything to do with growing government and growing your dependency on government.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Reality
"Everything is on the table." Sounds familiar, right? That is what we've been told when it comes to PrezBo's deficit reduction commission. But if you are a Democrat, "everything" principally applies to tax increases on the evil, disgusting, crooked, undeserving filthy rich, and perhaps even a tax increase in the form of a VAT tax (which will be billed as a "deficit reduction sales tax").
What is another line that sounds familiar? How about, "We can't afford tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." How many times have we heard THAT line over the past few weeks. Some Democrats think that line is working so well they've even edited it to leave out the "millionaires" part and are limiting it to "billionaires." They've further modified their class warfare script to include the idea that it's not just a tax cut, it's "$100,000 checks for billionaires." Democrats will go to any length to step up class envy and class warfare in this country. This is because they know that most people who are envious of or hate those with considerably more money than they have will most certainly vote Democrat. But when it comes to "affording" these tax cuts, remember that we are really talking about tax INCREASES on the rich. Democrats want to increase taxes. Got it?
We're told that increasing these taxes will lead us on a path toward eliminating our deficit. That's the Democrat argument. How many of you actually believe that? And just how many of you actually believe that if we increase taxes, thereby increasing the amount of money that the federal government collects, we will then use that money to apply it toward deficit reduction?
Before you answer that, perhaps I can share a little nugget of information with you. I'll try to make this semi-interesting .. In the late 1980s, some economists at Ohio University got together to do a little study for the congressional Joint Economic Committee. They wanted to know what happens when the government increases taxes and therefore collects more money for its coffers. Did government spending grow or did our debts shrink? These bean counters worked and slaved over their research and calculators and came up with something that is now known as the $1.58 study. This is what they found: "Every new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress. Subsequent revisions of the study over the next decade found similar results."
Let's review: Higher tax collections have never resulted in less spending by Congress. Do you understand that word? NEVER! And you think this time it would be different? Under Obama? At some point you really have to try to start thinking more clearly. It's not painful, really. The only pain is the embarrassment you feel over having been conned for so long.
Don't be fooled by the Democrat rhetoric; and don't expect the ObamaMedia to tell you the facts behind tax increases. Increasing taxes on the rich has nothing to do with reducing our deficit. It has everything to do with pandering to the wealth envy crowd. When presented with the information that increasing capital gains taxes resulted in less revenue for the government, our own president said that he would still increase taxes "for the purposes of fairness." How can you even debate such logic?
What is another line that sounds familiar? How about, "We can't afford tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." How many times have we heard THAT line over the past few weeks. Some Democrats think that line is working so well they've even edited it to leave out the "millionaires" part and are limiting it to "billionaires." They've further modified their class warfare script to include the idea that it's not just a tax cut, it's "$100,000 checks for billionaires." Democrats will go to any length to step up class envy and class warfare in this country. This is because they know that most people who are envious of or hate those with considerably more money than they have will most certainly vote Democrat. But when it comes to "affording" these tax cuts, remember that we are really talking about tax INCREASES on the rich. Democrats want to increase taxes. Got it?
We're told that increasing these taxes will lead us on a path toward eliminating our deficit. That's the Democrat argument. How many of you actually believe that? And just how many of you actually believe that if we increase taxes, thereby increasing the amount of money that the federal government collects, we will then use that money to apply it toward deficit reduction?
Before you answer that, perhaps I can share a little nugget of information with you. I'll try to make this semi-interesting .. In the late 1980s, some economists at Ohio University got together to do a little study for the congressional Joint Economic Committee. They wanted to know what happens when the government increases taxes and therefore collects more money for its coffers. Did government spending grow or did our debts shrink? These bean counters worked and slaved over their research and calculators and came up with something that is now known as the $1.58 study. This is what they found: "Every new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress. Subsequent revisions of the study over the next decade found similar results."
Let's review: Higher tax collections have never resulted in less spending by Congress. Do you understand that word? NEVER! And you think this time it would be different? Under Obama? At some point you really have to try to start thinking more clearly. It's not painful, really. The only pain is the embarrassment you feel over having been conned for so long.
Don't be fooled by the Democrat rhetoric; and don't expect the ObamaMedia to tell you the facts behind tax increases. Increasing taxes on the rich has nothing to do with reducing our deficit. It has everything to do with pandering to the wealth envy crowd. When presented with the information that increasing capital gains taxes resulted in less revenue for the government, our own president said that he would still increase taxes "for the purposes of fairness." How can you even debate such logic?
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
It's just not that complicated
We've got some serious work to do when it comes to tackling our fiscal inadequacies. How does this one sit with ya? Senators Tom Carper (D-Delaware) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) want to increase fuel taxes. The proposed 25-cent-per-gallon increase would go toward deficit reduction and the highway trust fund. If implemented, it could raise $200 billion over five years. There you go ... two members of the Senate who think we have a revenue problem instead of a spending problem.
Raising taxes. That's all these people can ever come up with. Just a few weeks ago, I shared this little tidbit with you from the Congressional Budget Office. We can eliminate the deficit .. and do it relatively quickly ... WITHOUT cutting spending or raising taxes. Three scenarios:
* If we cap federal spending at current levels and extend the Bush tax cuts the budget will be balanced by 2016.
* If we limit increases in government spending to a rate of 1 percent above inflation and population growth the budget will balance by 2017.
* If we limit increases in government spending to a rate of 2 percent above inflation and population growth the budget balances by 2020.
But I guess these options are not nearly as sexy as taxing the rich or coming up with new ways to raise or increase taxes. After all, these politicians need something to do in Washington to make it seem like they are working. They can't write press releases for their local districts, bragging about how they aren't spending money.
Raising taxes. That's all these people can ever come up with. Just a few weeks ago, I shared this little tidbit with you from the Congressional Budget Office. We can eliminate the deficit .. and do it relatively quickly ... WITHOUT cutting spending or raising taxes. Three scenarios:
* If we cap federal spending at current levels and extend the Bush tax cuts the budget will be balanced by 2016.
* If we limit increases in government spending to a rate of 1 percent above inflation and population growth the budget will balance by 2017.
* If we limit increases in government spending to a rate of 2 percent above inflation and population growth the budget balances by 2020.
But I guess these options are not nearly as sexy as taxing the rich or coming up with new ways to raise or increase taxes. After all, these politicians need something to do in Washington to make it seem like they are working. They can't write press releases for their local districts, bragging about how they aren't spending money.
Monday, November 08, 2010
Don't let up the pressure on the Republicans
Maybe you've sensed it too. The rhetoric coming from some Republicans leaders in Washington has been, shall we say, just a bit odd. Well, for one, they're upset with the Tea Party movement because the Republicans say that the Tea Parties cost them at least three Senate seats by pushing unqualified candidates (Sharron Angle, Cristine O'Donnell and Ken Buck) in races the GOP could have won.
Say what? Is it sounding to you like the Republicans actually went out there and won this midterm election on their own? Now there attitude seems to be "Well, we're in power again. Time for these Tea Party people to go back to their Bibles and stuff."
You would have thought that some of the brighter minds in the Republican Party would have realized that the voters didn't vote FOR them ... they voted AGAINST Democrats. This "Hey! How cool are we!" stuff is going to get tiring.
This John Boehner guy? Still not sure about him. As Andrew C. McCarthy pointed out in this column, Boehner wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street journal about the election and opportunities for Republicans and didn't once use the word "debt" in that article. At the start of World War II a single American's share of our national debt was about $370. Today that figure is at $44,370. Boehner focused in that article on earmarks. Earmarks account for less than one percent of our budget. Hey, Boehner ... how about a little focus on the REAL problems out there?
We need to ride the Republicans even harder than we did the Democrats. With the Democrats there were alternatives. If the Republicans start enjoying their power a bit too much, and forget why they were put back in charge of the House ... then where do we turn?
And the GOP social conservatives? Concentrate, for a while, on how you live your own lives. Nobody is going to force you to have an abortion. Nobody is going to force you to marry someone of your sex. Nobody is going to coerce you into a homosexual act. And you can still pray whenever and wherever you want. Getting back on those tired rants isn't going to save our country .. it will serve, instead, to deliver us right back into the hands of those who want to destroy --- or "fundamentally transform" - America.
Say what? Is it sounding to you like the Republicans actually went out there and won this midterm election on their own? Now there attitude seems to be "Well, we're in power again. Time for these Tea Party people to go back to their Bibles and stuff."
You would have thought that some of the brighter minds in the Republican Party would have realized that the voters didn't vote FOR them ... they voted AGAINST Democrats. This "Hey! How cool are we!" stuff is going to get tiring.
This John Boehner guy? Still not sure about him. As Andrew C. McCarthy pointed out in this column, Boehner wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street journal about the election and opportunities for Republicans and didn't once use the word "debt" in that article. At the start of World War II a single American's share of our national debt was about $370. Today that figure is at $44,370. Boehner focused in that article on earmarks. Earmarks account for less than one percent of our budget. Hey, Boehner ... how about a little focus on the REAL problems out there?
We need to ride the Republicans even harder than we did the Democrats. With the Democrats there were alternatives. If the Republicans start enjoying their power a bit too much, and forget why they were put back in charge of the House ... then where do we turn?
And the GOP social conservatives? Concentrate, for a while, on how you live your own lives. Nobody is going to force you to have an abortion. Nobody is going to force you to marry someone of your sex. Nobody is going to coerce you into a homosexual act. And you can still pray whenever and wherever you want. Getting back on those tired rants isn't going to save our country .. it will serve, instead, to deliver us right back into the hands of those who want to destroy --- or "fundamentally transform" - America.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Think about it.
Would anyone out there like to venture a guess as to what the number one name for newborn boys is in Great Britain is? Nope, it's not Winston. And it's not John, Paul, George or Ringo either. It's Mohammed. I was in England in 2008. When I stepped out of the Underground and walked into daylight near my hotel I was completely blown away by the numbers of women in burkas. I might as well have been in Kabul. Those of you who think this is a good thing for Jolly old England raise your hands.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Reality Bites
Don't usually watch 60 Minutes any more. Last night it caught my eye though ... they were featuring some people who have been on unemployment for over 99 months; hence the 99rs. It was heart wrenching. Here was a room full of people with college degrees; many with advanced degrees. Most of them thought they would retire with the company they were working for when they lost their jobs. CBS correspondent Scott Pelley talked to people who were thrilled to get a job at Target on the sales floor. Every one of these people were surprised to be in the situation they find themselves. Many have pulled some or all of the money out of their 401K. It's just horrifying.
And it's infuriating too. It should not be this way ... it need not be this way. Businesses are sitting on more than two trillion dollars in cash right now. In more normal times this money would be used to hire people and expand as the economy recover. These are not normal times. These businessmen are scared to death. Oh, I know ... Democrats and "progressive" moonbats like to say that these businesses are intentionally holding back on spending and hiring just to embarrass Obama. Pure bullshit! They're sitting on this money because they don't know what's next, and they're afraid of just how bad it could be.
Can you put yourself in their place? Try to imagine that you are a small businessman. You've already dedicated your life to the formation and growth of your business. Here's what you're facing
You have no idea what your tax burden is going to be next year. You're a small businessman and you report your earnings and your profit on your personal income tax return. Almost 50% of all business income ... representing more than 60 of all private sector employees. Will your taxes go up or stay the same? If the taxes go up, either your customers, your employees or you will pay the price. Which will it be? Maybe it's just best to wait things out so that you can make a sound business expansion plan - or not - when you know what your tax structure is going to be.
And what about ObamaCare? Is the mandate going to withstand court challenges? How much is it going to cost to cover your employees? Should you drop coverage and pay the penalties?
Don't forget cap and trade. This monstrosity has already passed the House. Will the Democrats manage to keep power and get this passed? How will that affect your business. How much will it cost?
And don't forget card check. If the Democrats give the unions what they want - the power to intimidate your employees into unionizing - how will that affect your business? Do you really want to own and run a business with a unionized workforce? Maybe you had better wait to see where this is going.
Then there's the financial reform act. How many different government agencies are there right now that are creating new rules for the operations of financial institutions? You have to borrow money from these institutions .. they handle your credit card transactions. They manage your employee 401K plans. These financial institutions are intertwined into every aspect of your business. Perhaps you ought to put expansion on hold until you find out what these hundreds of pages of regulations are going to bring you.
Finally .... There's this. You've known for a long time that Democrats are not now, nor will they ever be friendly towards private business. But now things are even worse. You have a president who honestly hates the free market. We have a president who believes that profit is a symbol of exploitation and that the rich got that way by plundering the lives and the very rights of the middle class and the poor. He considers the free marketplace to be predatory and sees himself and government as instruments to tame the savage free enterprise beast.
So .. .there you sit. You have the money to grow, but you're asking yourself if you really want to put your wealth at risk trying to grow your business in this environment ... and the answer is ... well ... probably not. Let's wait and see what happens.
Obama isn't suddenly going to become business friendly, and the Democrats aren't going to suddenly the free market after this election. You have a president who referred to his brief stint working as a clerk in a private office as "working behind enemy lines." Don't you get it? That's you he's talking about. You! YOU are the enemy!
Obama - the president who, to whatever extent he thinks America is great - believes that greatness comes from government - cannot be removed from office for two years. But he can be defanged. The venom he wishes to inject into the bloodstream of American business must originate in the congress. Taking the House of Representatives away from Barack Obama is like removing the fangs from a rattlesnake. He can hiss and rattle all he wants ... but it becomes little more than show.
And it's infuriating too. It should not be this way ... it need not be this way. Businesses are sitting on more than two trillion dollars in cash right now. In more normal times this money would be used to hire people and expand as the economy recover. These are not normal times. These businessmen are scared to death. Oh, I know ... Democrats and "progressive" moonbats like to say that these businesses are intentionally holding back on spending and hiring just to embarrass Obama. Pure bullshit! They're sitting on this money because they don't know what's next, and they're afraid of just how bad it could be.
Can you put yourself in their place? Try to imagine that you are a small businessman. You've already dedicated your life to the formation and growth of your business. Here's what you're facing
You have no idea what your tax burden is going to be next year. You're a small businessman and you report your earnings and your profit on your personal income tax return. Almost 50% of all business income ... representing more than 60 of all private sector employees. Will your taxes go up or stay the same? If the taxes go up, either your customers, your employees or you will pay the price. Which will it be? Maybe it's just best to wait things out so that you can make a sound business expansion plan - or not - when you know what your tax structure is going to be.
And what about ObamaCare? Is the mandate going to withstand court challenges? How much is it going to cost to cover your employees? Should you drop coverage and pay the penalties?
Don't forget cap and trade. This monstrosity has already passed the House. Will the Democrats manage to keep power and get this passed? How will that affect your business. How much will it cost?
And don't forget card check. If the Democrats give the unions what they want - the power to intimidate your employees into unionizing - how will that affect your business? Do you really want to own and run a business with a unionized workforce? Maybe you had better wait to see where this is going.
Then there's the financial reform act. How many different government agencies are there right now that are creating new rules for the operations of financial institutions? You have to borrow money from these institutions .. they handle your credit card transactions. They manage your employee 401K plans. These financial institutions are intertwined into every aspect of your business. Perhaps you ought to put expansion on hold until you find out what these hundreds of pages of regulations are going to bring you.
Finally .... There's this. You've known for a long time that Democrats are not now, nor will they ever be friendly towards private business. But now things are even worse. You have a president who honestly hates the free market. We have a president who believes that profit is a symbol of exploitation and that the rich got that way by plundering the lives and the very rights of the middle class and the poor. He considers the free marketplace to be predatory and sees himself and government as instruments to tame the savage free enterprise beast.
So .. .there you sit. You have the money to grow, but you're asking yourself if you really want to put your wealth at risk trying to grow your business in this environment ... and the answer is ... well ... probably not. Let's wait and see what happens.
Obama isn't suddenly going to become business friendly, and the Democrats aren't going to suddenly the free market after this election. You have a president who referred to his brief stint working as a clerk in a private office as "working behind enemy lines." Don't you get it? That's you he's talking about. You! YOU are the enemy!
Obama - the president who, to whatever extent he thinks America is great - believes that greatness comes from government - cannot be removed from office for two years. But he can be defanged. The venom he wishes to inject into the bloodstream of American business must originate in the congress. Taking the House of Representatives away from Barack Obama is like removing the fangs from a rattlesnake. He can hiss and rattle all he wants ... but it becomes little more than show.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Alert
Information about Gonorrhea Lectim ...
The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of this old disease. The disease it called Gonorrhea Lectim. It's pronounced "Gonna re-elect 'em," and it is a terrible obamanation.
The disease is contracted through dangerous and high risk behavior involving putting your cranium up your rectum. Many victims contracted it in 2008 ... but now most people, after having been infected for the past 1-2 years, are starting to realize how destructive this sickness is.
It's sad because Gonorrhea Lectim is easily cured with a new drug just coming on the market called Votemout. You take the first dose in 2010 and the second dose in 2012 and simply don't engage in such behavior again; otherwise, it could become permanent and eventually wipe out all life as we know it.
Several states are already on top of this, like Virginia and New Jersey, and apparently now Massachusetts, with many more seeing the writing on the wall.
Please pass this important message on to all those bright folks you really care about.
The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of this old disease. The disease it called Gonorrhea Lectim. It's pronounced "Gonna re-elect 'em," and it is a terrible obamanation.
The disease is contracted through dangerous and high risk behavior involving putting your cranium up your rectum. Many victims contracted it in 2008 ... but now most people, after having been infected for the past 1-2 years, are starting to realize how destructive this sickness is.
It's sad because Gonorrhea Lectim is easily cured with a new drug just coming on the market called Votemout. You take the first dose in 2010 and the second dose in 2012 and simply don't engage in such behavior again; otherwise, it could become permanent and eventually wipe out all life as we know it.
Several states are already on top of this, like Virginia and New Jersey, and apparently now Massachusetts, with many more seeing the writing on the wall.
Please pass this important message on to all those bright folks you really care about.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Twats wrong with this picture?
So, in a blinding feat of profound wussiness, the Washington Post removed the October 3rd "Non Sequitur" cartoon from its rag. The reason? It mentioned Muhammad. Let me repeat: it was yanked because it "mentioned" – not showed – Muhammad.
There wasn`t a picture of him in the strip.
But the Post, and some other papers, still pulled it.
Admirably, Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander asked his Style editor why- and he said, "it seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message." He added that "the point of the joke was not immediately clear."
Yeah. That`s why you did it: ambiguity. Weasel.
And here we see another float in the parade of pussies – a callow editor making a cowardly decision based on a fear of upsetting religious fanatics (a fear he cannot even admit to coworkers).
Which leads me to my only point. Why is it that the media keeps reminding us that we shouldn`t exaggerate the threat of a small group of radicals – but completely changes tact, when it comes to their own personal safety?
Think about it: if the average Joe expresses fear or anxiety over Islamic fundamentalism, they are called Islamophobes. But if an editor with balls the size of electrons removes a comic in which Muhammad isn`t even present – that`s not honest-to-Allah Islamophobia?
No, that`s just being sensitive.
Look, the media can`t have it both ways. They cannot criticize the public for concerns over Islam, and then eradicate anything in their midst that they perceive might elevate their risk for getting stabbed buying a chai latte at Starbucks. If their governing principle in the newsroom is fear, then they should admit it – and get the hell off our backs for feeling the same way.
There wasn`t a picture of him in the strip.
But the Post, and some other papers, still pulled it.
Admirably, Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander asked his Style editor why- and he said, "it seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message." He added that "the point of the joke was not immediately clear."
Yeah. That`s why you did it: ambiguity. Weasel.
And here we see another float in the parade of pussies – a callow editor making a cowardly decision based on a fear of upsetting religious fanatics (a fear he cannot even admit to coworkers).
Which leads me to my only point. Why is it that the media keeps reminding us that we shouldn`t exaggerate the threat of a small group of radicals – but completely changes tact, when it comes to their own personal safety?
Think about it: if the average Joe expresses fear or anxiety over Islamic fundamentalism, they are called Islamophobes. But if an editor with balls the size of electrons removes a comic in which Muhammad isn`t even present – that`s not honest-to-Allah Islamophobia?
No, that`s just being sensitive.
Look, the media can`t have it both ways. They cannot criticize the public for concerns over Islam, and then eradicate anything in their midst that they perceive might elevate their risk for getting stabbed buying a chai latte at Starbucks. If their governing principle in the newsroom is fear, then they should admit it – and get the hell off our backs for feeling the same way.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
A genuine outrage
This story has been flying along at fairly low level for a while. It would seem that a lot of our man and women serving in our military oversees are not getting their absentee ballots for the midterm elections. The latest story is about Illinois ... our Ruler's home state. We learn today that not all of the 110 jurisdictions in Illinois have complied with the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Enforcement Act that requires that all absentee ballots to overseas troop be mailed 45 days prior to the election. Now just how difficult would that be? Well, difficult enough, apparently, that the violations are so obvious that even Eric Holder's Justice Department is investigating.
Missing overseas ballots from Illinois servicemen is a particular problem because of the very close race for Obama's Senate seat between Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Alexi Giannoulias. There's also a thin edge for the GOP candidate for governor. The military ballot could - our could have been the deciding factor in these elections.
Every time I've seen this story reported there has been one glaring omission. Nobody seems to remember what happened in 2000. When you consider the actions of the Gore campaign and the Democrat National Committee during the Florida recount debacle you really have to wonder if the lack of compliance in 2010 is purely coincidental. Get in your way-back machine and you will remember that the Democrats sent dozens ... perhaps more than a hundred ... volunteer lawyers to Florida. These lawyers had one primary instruction. They were to fan out into the various Florida voting districts where recounts were being held, and they were to to everything they could to make sure military ballots weren't counted. Democrats knew that military voters trend Republican ... and they were determined to prevent as many of these votes counting as possible.
Consider the possibility that some local Democrat operatives are trying to pull the same thing in 2010. Just sayin'.
Missing overseas ballots from Illinois servicemen is a particular problem because of the very close race for Obama's Senate seat between Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Alexi Giannoulias. There's also a thin edge for the GOP candidate for governor. The military ballot could - our could have been the deciding factor in these elections.
Every time I've seen this story reported there has been one glaring omission. Nobody seems to remember what happened in 2000. When you consider the actions of the Gore campaign and the Democrat National Committee during the Florida recount debacle you really have to wonder if the lack of compliance in 2010 is purely coincidental. Get in your way-back machine and you will remember that the Democrats sent dozens ... perhaps more than a hundred ... volunteer lawyers to Florida. These lawyers had one primary instruction. They were to fan out into the various Florida voting districts where recounts were being held, and they were to to everything they could to make sure military ballots weren't counted. Democrats knew that military voters trend Republican ... and they were determined to prevent as many of these votes counting as possible.
Consider the possibility that some local Democrat operatives are trying to pull the same thing in 2010. Just sayin'.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Mexican leadership at its very best
So, it's worse than smoking, drinking while pregnant, or frying bacon in the buff. Combined.
Mexico's health ministry has announced that being an illegal immigrant is hazardous to your health.
Yep, during a health conference in that adorable country, they said Mexican illegal immigrants have higher rates of mental illness, AIDs, and drug problems after crossing the border. The study was done in conjunction with the University of California, a-k-a goofball central.
So upon hearing these conclusions, you'd think the researchers would suggest to their people: "Hey, don't leave Mexico - stay here! It's healthier!"
But no.
Instead the researchers blame...us. Yep these problems are due to a lack of access to medical care in the US - something we jerky racists are denying them.
Yes, they're sick because we're racist! According to a frantic article by All Headline News, lack of health care is likely to get worse because of a "xenophobic wave that has arisen after the start of the economic...crisis."
So, it's Arizona and the tea party's fault too.
So, what does it say about Mexico, and its leaders - when citizens are fleeing your country- and the response is a health summit?
Well, it says something.
Look, you need to stop focusing your resentment on America - and instead look at your own mess - and fix it.
Screw holding conferences on "the health consequences of immigration." Why not hold a conference entitled, "Why is everyone dying - literally - to get out of here?"
It's an idea you should be thinking about every moment of your waking life - instead of blaming America because your uncle's hearing voices.
Oh Cisco---Oh Pancho.
(Just a little ad-lib for all the folks who are old enough to remember the Kid)
Mexico's health ministry has announced that being an illegal immigrant is hazardous to your health.
Yep, during a health conference in that adorable country, they said Mexican illegal immigrants have higher rates of mental illness, AIDs, and drug problems after crossing the border. The study was done in conjunction with the University of California, a-k-a goofball central.
So upon hearing these conclusions, you'd think the researchers would suggest to their people: "Hey, don't leave Mexico - stay here! It's healthier!"
But no.
Instead the researchers blame...us. Yep these problems are due to a lack of access to medical care in the US - something we jerky racists are denying them.
Yes, they're sick because we're racist! According to a frantic article by All Headline News, lack of health care is likely to get worse because of a "xenophobic wave that has arisen after the start of the economic...crisis."
So, it's Arizona and the tea party's fault too.
So, what does it say about Mexico, and its leaders - when citizens are fleeing your country- and the response is a health summit?
Well, it says something.
Look, you need to stop focusing your resentment on America - and instead look at your own mess - and fix it.
Screw holding conferences on "the health consequences of immigration." Why not hold a conference entitled, "Why is everyone dying - literally - to get out of here?"
It's an idea you should be thinking about every moment of your waking life - instead of blaming America because your uncle's hearing voices.
Oh Cisco---Oh Pancho.
(Just a little ad-lib for all the folks who are old enough to remember the Kid)
Friday, October 08, 2010
Teeny Bopper Townhall
So MTV is holding a "townhall" for President Obama on Oct. 14, 4 p.m. in Washington, D.C.
In this case, a town hall is short-hand for "an event where annoying questions are asked by unemployment hipsters with vintage t-shirts and edgy eyewear."
But a casting call has surfaced, and this is what it says:
Seeking-Audience Members: males & females, 18+. To ensure that the audience represents diverse interests and political views, include your name...and what issues, if any, you are interested in or passionate about. Also, provide a recent photo and short description of your political views.
So what's the point of this prescreening process? Well, it serves three purposes:
One: to make sure the audience reflects America - which, coming from MTV - means it will look like something a Benetton ad might vomit, if it could vomit. Get ready for every nationality you can think of, plus of few you've never heard of - along with some amusing piercings and Asian lettered tattoos.
My prediction: there will be a transgendered Eskimo with ADHD there to ask Obama to get her harp seal recognized as an assistant animal.
Two: to make sure the questions asked will reflect the MTV's earnest concerns. The environment. Health care. Amnesty. Hermaphrodite bathroom rights. The central strategy: to avoid coming down too hard on Obama, and instead placing the criticism on us, for expecting too much from Captain Delicious.
And three: a smattering of hot chicks and some wistful emo dudes, who will fawn over Obama like he's Justin Bieber with a tan.
Me, I can't wait to watch - I find projectile vomiting is ten times better than the Stairmaster when it comes to losing weight.
And don't forget to pay attention to the guy with the bolt in his nose holding the leash on his Unicorn. That's my nephew Moonbeam.
In this case, a town hall is short-hand for "an event where annoying questions are asked by unemployment hipsters with vintage t-shirts and edgy eyewear."
But a casting call has surfaced, and this is what it says:
Seeking-Audience Members: males & females, 18+. To ensure that the audience represents diverse interests and political views, include your name...and what issues, if any, you are interested in or passionate about. Also, provide a recent photo and short description of your political views.
So what's the point of this prescreening process? Well, it serves three purposes:
One: to make sure the audience reflects America - which, coming from MTV - means it will look like something a Benetton ad might vomit, if it could vomit. Get ready for every nationality you can think of, plus of few you've never heard of - along with some amusing piercings and Asian lettered tattoos.
My prediction: there will be a transgendered Eskimo with ADHD there to ask Obama to get her harp seal recognized as an assistant animal.
Two: to make sure the questions asked will reflect the MTV's earnest concerns. The environment. Health care. Amnesty. Hermaphrodite bathroom rights. The central strategy: to avoid coming down too hard on Obama, and instead placing the criticism on us, for expecting too much from Captain Delicious.
And three: a smattering of hot chicks and some wistful emo dudes, who will fawn over Obama like he's Justin Bieber with a tan.
Me, I can't wait to watch - I find projectile vomiting is ten times better than the Stairmaster when it comes to losing weight.
And don't forget to pay attention to the guy with the bolt in his nose holding the leash on his Unicorn. That's my nephew Moonbeam.
The reign of Nancy Pelosi's ethical and transparent Congress may be coming to an end. It was just four years ago that Princess Nancy promised that the Democrats would lead "the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history." Remember that? Surely you didn't believe her ... did you?
So what happened? Pelosi's Posse got drunk with power. Then the Democrats believed that their drunken spending spree was validated by the voters when they captured the White House in 2008. But for whatever reason - the continuously floundering economy, the passing of legislation nobody wants, the emergence of the Tea Party, secret closed-door meetings, ethics investigations into their own members, bills that nobody has read - the Democrats find themselves in a position where people no longer believe them. Simply put: they have lost America's trust. It is not that the Republicans have gained that trust, which they so squandered years ago, but that the Democrats blew it. And Nancy Pelosi was at the helm. A recent poll emphasizes this fact: Most voters think Congress's ethics have gotten worse in the past two years, with 57% of likely voters believing that the ethical situation on Capitol Hill has deteriorated since PrezBo took office.
So what happened? Pelosi's Posse got drunk with power. Then the Democrats believed that their drunken spending spree was validated by the voters when they captured the White House in 2008. But for whatever reason - the continuously floundering economy, the passing of legislation nobody wants, the emergence of the Tea Party, secret closed-door meetings, ethics investigations into their own members, bills that nobody has read - the Democrats find themselves in a position where people no longer believe them. Simply put: they have lost America's trust. It is not that the Republicans have gained that trust, which they so squandered years ago, but that the Democrats blew it. And Nancy Pelosi was at the helm. A recent poll emphasizes this fact: Most voters think Congress's ethics have gotten worse in the past two years, with 57% of likely voters believing that the ethical situation on Capitol Hill has deteriorated since PrezBo took office.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
CongressCritter Phil Hare is a Putz. An ignorant Putz
From the man who brought us the infamous sound bite from a townhall meeting, "I don't care about the Constitution!" comes this next quote. Representative Phil Hare is an example of someone who needs to be shown the exit door in just 26 days.
Allow me to quote Rep. Phil Hare (Dumbocrat)
"And we will see a terrible price that we will pay years down the road for letting our children down when they need us the absolute most. I'm not going to be part of that, so every minute that I have here is going to be spent debunking the myth that this country's in debt and we just can't spend."
What?
Is it just me or is the man trying to say that the existence of our debt is merely a myth? Lest I remind you of this fact that forty-one cents of every dollar the federal government spends we have to borrow from our kids and grandkids. Our current national debt is over $13 trillion. If there is one thing that virtually all economists can agree on, it is the fact that our spending levels are on an unsustainable path. But people like Rep. Phil Hare will go as far as to refer to it as a myth. Unbelievable. But what the hell ... after all, he doesn't care about our Constitution. How bright can he be?
Allow me to quote Rep. Phil Hare (Dumbocrat)
"And we will see a terrible price that we will pay years down the road for letting our children down when they need us the absolute most. I'm not going to be part of that, so every minute that I have here is going to be spent debunking the myth that this country's in debt and we just can't spend."
What?
Is it just me or is the man trying to say that the existence of our debt is merely a myth? Lest I remind you of this fact that forty-one cents of every dollar the federal government spends we have to borrow from our kids and grandkids. Our current national debt is over $13 trillion. If there is one thing that virtually all economists can agree on, it is the fact that our spending levels are on an unsustainable path. But people like Rep. Phil Hare will go as far as to refer to it as a myth. Unbelievable. But what the hell ... after all, he doesn't care about our Constitution. How bright can he be?
Time for the Race Card
Here we are .. down to the wire. Just 26 days until the elections and what do we have emerging from the Democrat camp? The race card. It was bound to happen. When in doubt, use the race card, and the Democrats have some serious doubts ... or at least, the people have some serious doubts about them. Recent Gallup polls show that the "white working class" is flocking to the Republicans; whites without four-year college degrees prefer GOP candidates by twice the margin of the last two elections. This is bad news for Democrats, considering that the white working class accounts for four out of every 10 voters in America.
Obviously Democrats need to come up with an explanation. Just why are white working class Americans abandoning Obama? Why are they flocking to the Republican Party? Well ... it has to be race, of course! These Americans obviously can't stand the idea that we have a black president, so their only recourse is to vote the opposition into power. The Democrats, however, are having a bit of a rough time trying to explain just how long it was after these white working-class people who voted for Obama in 2008 figured out he was black! "He's black! Dammit, why didn't someone tell me! I'm a racist, you know, and I wouldn't have voted for him if I had know he's black!"
While the Republicans have issued a Pledge to America and promise to get serious about spending and our debt, what is the underlying agenda of the Republican Party? According to Democats ... that agenda would be to turn back the clock on minority gains. Seriously! House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Xavier Becerra of California said yesterday that minorities will lose ground on the policies they have worked so hard to achieve. James Clyburn says, "If we do not have a turnout in the minority communities, Latino and African-American, equal to our percentage of the voter population, we could very well see ourselves turning the clock back on so many issues important to these communities." (Yeah ... like more welfare and amnesty.) Clyburn goes on to explain that we can't let this happen ... "Next year, we may even get the public option!" The public option? That's right. Government healthcare.
Meanwhile, Rasmussen polling shows that finds that just 36% of voters now say relations between blacks and whites are getting better. That's down from 62% in July of last year. What a shame. If we could have gained anything from the Great Obama Experiment, at least we could have gained some ground on the issue of race relations. If we could at least have something to show for the incredible spending and debt levels Obama will leave in his wake, improving the opportunities for those who have ever felt as though those opportunities didn't apply to them would have been more than a consolation prize - it could have shaped a generation. Maybe ... could it possibly be ... is it at all fair to say that some people just don't feel all that swell about cozying up to a group of people who seemingly would still back Obama if he sprouted horns and a tail? Just askin'.
Obviously Democrats need to come up with an explanation. Just why are white working class Americans abandoning Obama? Why are they flocking to the Republican Party? Well ... it has to be race, of course! These Americans obviously can't stand the idea that we have a black president, so their only recourse is to vote the opposition into power. The Democrats, however, are having a bit of a rough time trying to explain just how long it was after these white working-class people who voted for Obama in 2008 figured out he was black! "He's black! Dammit, why didn't someone tell me! I'm a racist, you know, and I wouldn't have voted for him if I had know he's black!"
While the Republicans have issued a Pledge to America and promise to get serious about spending and our debt, what is the underlying agenda of the Republican Party? According to Democats ... that agenda would be to turn back the clock on minority gains. Seriously! House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Xavier Becerra of California said yesterday that minorities will lose ground on the policies they have worked so hard to achieve. James Clyburn says, "If we do not have a turnout in the minority communities, Latino and African-American, equal to our percentage of the voter population, we could very well see ourselves turning the clock back on so many issues important to these communities." (Yeah ... like more welfare and amnesty.) Clyburn goes on to explain that we can't let this happen ... "Next year, we may even get the public option!" The public option? That's right. Government healthcare.
Meanwhile, Rasmussen polling shows that finds that just 36% of voters now say relations between blacks and whites are getting better. That's down from 62% in July of last year. What a shame. If we could have gained anything from the Great Obama Experiment, at least we could have gained some ground on the issue of race relations. If we could at least have something to show for the incredible spending and debt levels Obama will leave in his wake, improving the opportunities for those who have ever felt as though those opportunities didn't apply to them would have been more than a consolation prize - it could have shaped a generation. Maybe ... could it possibly be ... is it at all fair to say that some people just don't feel all that swell about cozying up to a group of people who seemingly would still back Obama if he sprouted horns and a tail? Just askin'.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Four weeks from tomorrow you had better vote...
You've heard of this one, haven't you? Nancy Pelosi was sending out positive vibes at the end of last week ... positive, that is, if you like the idea of the Imperial Federal Government collect a 1% (initial) tax on all financial transactions ... any financial transaction at any financial institution.
You haven't heard about this? No surprise. There's an election coming you know. Democrats aren't fond of telegraphing their various tax schemes just before you go to the polls. My guess is that you'll hear plenty about this if the voters of this country somehow manage to leave the Democrats in power. Drudge did, however, run with a bit over the weekend wherein Nancy Pelosi indicated that the idea had merit. On December 4th of last year CNSnews.com ran with a story detailing Pelosi's endorsement of a "global" tax on stock trades and other financial transactions that she said at a news conference could bring in $150 billion annually.
So ... just in case you're actually thinking of voting, maybe this explanation will help you make up your mind.
A financial transaction tax would most likely start out at around 1%. If you made a $500 deposit into your savings account, $5 would go to Washington. If your employer automatically deposited you $1,845 paycheck into your account every two weeks, $18.45 would go to the federal government. That's what happens when your money goes INTO your account? But what about when it comes OUT? Well, that's another financial transaction, isn't it? Charge a $80 dinner for two to your Visa card, 80 cents to the government. Let's say your car payment is $390 per month. Every time you make that payment $3.90 goes to the government. Over 36 months this would amount to $140. Now remember .. you already paid income tax on this money ... and here comes another 1% going in, and 1% coming out.
Mention this to a Democrat ... and they will surely tell you that you are crazy, that they would never consider something like this. But hold on a minute ... you need to know that this idea of a financial transaction tax is very popular right now in Europe. Some have even proposed such a tax as a way to support the United Nations, and I've already told you about Pelosi's love for the idea. So ... do you feel lucky? Go ahead! Put your favorite Democrat back into office. Then you can react with amazement a few months down the road when the Democrats - still in power thanks to your efforts --- announce that something like a temporary transaction is going to be necessary to take care of our deficit. The truth, of course, is that if they got the tax it would not be used to cover the deficit ... it would just be more money for them to spend on their various vote-buying schemes. Temporary? Yeah, right. The only thing about this financial transaction tax that would be temporary would be the rate. Again ... how long would it take them to tell you that they just "had" to raise the rate to 2%, but just for a while, mind you .. just for a while until whatever crisis our dear leaders in Washington were dealing with passed.
Are you beginning to see what the stakes are here four weeks from tomorrow? We're not playing some video game here folks. The threat is real, and if you aren't on the front lines to fight these people I promise you that your children and grandchildren will damn you for walking away from this battle.
You haven't heard about this? No surprise. There's an election coming you know. Democrats aren't fond of telegraphing their various tax schemes just before you go to the polls. My guess is that you'll hear plenty about this if the voters of this country somehow manage to leave the Democrats in power. Drudge did, however, run with a bit over the weekend wherein Nancy Pelosi indicated that the idea had merit. On December 4th of last year CNSnews.com ran with a story detailing Pelosi's endorsement of a "global" tax on stock trades and other financial transactions that she said at a news conference could bring in $150 billion annually.
So ... just in case you're actually thinking of voting, maybe this explanation will help you make up your mind.
A financial transaction tax would most likely start out at around 1%. If you made a $500 deposit into your savings account, $5 would go to Washington. If your employer automatically deposited you $1,845 paycheck into your account every two weeks, $18.45 would go to the federal government. That's what happens when your money goes INTO your account? But what about when it comes OUT? Well, that's another financial transaction, isn't it? Charge a $80 dinner for two to your Visa card, 80 cents to the government. Let's say your car payment is $390 per month. Every time you make that payment $3.90 goes to the government. Over 36 months this would amount to $140. Now remember .. you already paid income tax on this money ... and here comes another 1% going in, and 1% coming out.
Mention this to a Democrat ... and they will surely tell you that you are crazy, that they would never consider something like this. But hold on a minute ... you need to know that this idea of a financial transaction tax is very popular right now in Europe. Some have even proposed such a tax as a way to support the United Nations, and I've already told you about Pelosi's love for the idea. So ... do you feel lucky? Go ahead! Put your favorite Democrat back into office. Then you can react with amazement a few months down the road when the Democrats - still in power thanks to your efforts --- announce that something like a temporary transaction is going to be necessary to take care of our deficit. The truth, of course, is that if they got the tax it would not be used to cover the deficit ... it would just be more money for them to spend on their various vote-buying schemes. Temporary? Yeah, right. The only thing about this financial transaction tax that would be temporary would be the rate. Again ... how long would it take them to tell you that they just "had" to raise the rate to 2%, but just for a while, mind you .. just for a while until whatever crisis our dear leaders in Washington were dealing with passed.
Are you beginning to see what the stakes are here four weeks from tomorrow? We're not playing some video game here folks. The threat is real, and if you aren't on the front lines to fight these people I promise you that your children and grandchildren will damn you for walking away from this battle.
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Obama vs. Fox and you
So President Obama was just interviewed in Rolling Stone magazine, that thinning pamphlet for our country's dwindling supply of pony-tailed pensioners.
(AARP skews younger.)
When asked about Fox News, this is what our Commander-in-chief had to say.
I think Fox ... is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It's a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it's been wildly successful.
Okay. So, you're the President of the United States, with both Houses under your control. You also have the most fawning press of any president in the history of the universe. And yet you let FNC get under your skin, because it's the only network that doesn't have a thrill up its leg?
Obama is like a sports team who owns the ref, the fans and the field- but refuses to play until the kid in the tenth row stops chewing gum.
So let's indulge Obama's fantasy: and imagine if FNC didn't exist. Yeah, it's the good old days, when the only media was a liberal one.
Well, Obama would still be in trouble. See, it wasn't Fox who started the tea parties. It was Rick Santelli - and then America ran with it.
In fact, it would be far worse for Obama if there was no Fox, because then he'd only have the American people to bash. There is no Republican adversary, and without FNC - who's left? You.
And this is why the Whiner-in-Chief needs FOX. It provides cover, so Obama can criticize Americans without ever saying "America." He can just say Fox News instead.
(AARP skews younger.)
When asked about Fox News, this is what our Commander-in-chief had to say.
I think Fox ... is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It's a point of view that I disagree with. It's a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it's been wildly successful.
Okay. So, you're the President of the United States, with both Houses under your control. You also have the most fawning press of any president in the history of the universe. And yet you let FNC get under your skin, because it's the only network that doesn't have a thrill up its leg?
Obama is like a sports team who owns the ref, the fans and the field- but refuses to play until the kid in the tenth row stops chewing gum.
So let's indulge Obama's fantasy: and imagine if FNC didn't exist. Yeah, it's the good old days, when the only media was a liberal one.
Well, Obama would still be in trouble. See, it wasn't Fox who started the tea parties. It was Rick Santelli - and then America ran with it.
In fact, it would be far worse for Obama if there was no Fox, because then he'd only have the American people to bash. There is no Republican adversary, and without FNC - who's left? You.
And this is why the Whiner-in-Chief needs FOX. It provides cover, so Obama can criticize Americans without ever saying "America." He can just say Fox News instead.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Obama is not a Muslim
Let's make it clear. I don't think he's a Muslim. I'm not buying into that Christian thing either. I know that the Bible says not to judge lest we be judged .. and I think that applies to a man's religion more than other areas of one's life .. but since Obama wants to judge when I've made enough money, I'll feel free to pass my own judgments on his professed religious feelings.
Christian? Sorry ... don't buy it. Obama joined Jeremiah Wright's church in Chicago for one reason ... political advantage. He surveyed the landscape and figured out that membership in this particular church would bring him the biggest political advantage as he launched his career. Simple as that.
But what about this Muslim thing? The media likes to portray those who think Obama is a Muslim as stupid, foolish or just plain demented. Really? These people who believe Obama is a Muslim have absolutely no foundation to their beliefs at all? Consider:
* Obama was born to a Muslim father. Some interpretations of Islamic law indicate that if you're born to a Muslim father .. you're a Muslim, at least at birth.
* Obama most definitely did go to a Muslim school while living in a Muslim nation.
* Obama most definitely did say that one of the most beautiful sounds in the world is the Muslim call to prayer at Sunrise.
* Obama most certainly has engaged in an extraordinary amount of pandering to Muslims since he was elected.
* Obama told his NASA Administrator that his "foremost" at NASA would be to improve relations with the Muslim world to make them feel good about their historic contributions to science.
None of these things make Obama a Muslim today. Again .. I don't think he is a Muslim any more than I think he's a Christian. But people who do have their doubts and express them as they have a right to do shouldn't be denigrated by the media elite for their stupidity. There is that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck thing.
Now this isn't to say that Obama doesn't have a god that he worships. He most certainly does. That god is Government and his scripture is the Federal Register, his cathedral the Capitol Building and his communion a bill signing ceremony.
Christian? Sorry ... don't buy it. Obama joined Jeremiah Wright's church in Chicago for one reason ... political advantage. He surveyed the landscape and figured out that membership in this particular church would bring him the biggest political advantage as he launched his career. Simple as that.
But what about this Muslim thing? The media likes to portray those who think Obama is a Muslim as stupid, foolish or just plain demented. Really? These people who believe Obama is a Muslim have absolutely no foundation to their beliefs at all? Consider:
* Obama was born to a Muslim father. Some interpretations of Islamic law indicate that if you're born to a Muslim father .. you're a Muslim, at least at birth.
* Obama most definitely did go to a Muslim school while living in a Muslim nation.
* Obama most definitely did say that one of the most beautiful sounds in the world is the Muslim call to prayer at Sunrise.
* Obama most certainly has engaged in an extraordinary amount of pandering to Muslims since he was elected.
* Obama told his NASA Administrator that his "foremost" at NASA would be to improve relations with the Muslim world to make them feel good about their historic contributions to science.
None of these things make Obama a Muslim today. Again .. I don't think he is a Muslim any more than I think he's a Christian. But people who do have their doubts and express them as they have a right to do shouldn't be denigrated by the media elite for their stupidity. There is that looks like a duck, quacks like a duck thing.
Now this isn't to say that Obama doesn't have a god that he worships. He most certainly does. That god is Government and his scripture is the Federal Register, his cathedral the Capitol Building and his communion a bill signing ceremony.
Recovery Summer
So there we have Joe Biden telling Americans yesterday that "we're heading in the right direction." Well ... from his standpoint, and certainly from the standpoint of his boss, The Community Organizer ...perhaps he's right. Right, that is, if your version of "the right direction" is toward the economic tyranny that will be visited upon us by Obama's vision of a centrally planned economy and your ability to accept fictional numbers like jobs saved or created and lives touched.
Just take a look at some of the headlines over the past few days:
* Home sales in the United States were down in July. This in spite of dirt-cheap mortgages and greatly reduced prices. The figures are the worse we've seen in this country in over a decade. The experts are telling us that we're in for another drop in home values. Welcome to Recovery Summer!
* The Financial Times says that disappointing US economic figures are driving a surge in demand for low-yielding assets. I'm not sure what that means, but it doesn't sound good. Here's a quote: "Things appear to have come to a head...with markets braced at the edge of a precipice ahead of key US economic data likely to further unnerve investors already concerned by the extent of impending slowdown." Welcome to Recovery Summer!
* This from The Wall Street Journal: Day after day, investors have been hit with more evidence that the economy is stalling. The Dow is down over 4% this month, after an ebullient July that was fueled by impressive earnings results from U.S. companies. The Dow posted another triple-digit loss today and at one point fell below the 10,000 level. Michael Casey has details about the factors driving today's market action. But earnings season is now over and investors are far more focused on potential troubles ahead. What's that Biden said? Oh yeah ... Welcome to Recovery Summer.
* Economist David Rosenberg, apparently someone who has earned a certain degree of respect in economic circles, writes a daily brief for investors. Yesterday he said that the U.S. economy is heading into a 1930s-style depression. He reminded his clients that the Great Depression also had some high points such as positive stock market gains .. but then, as now, those signs of recovery were unsustainable and only provided a false sense of stability.
* Charles Nenner, founder and president of Charles Nenner research says that the Dow is on its way down to 5000 in the next 30 months. He's saying that things "really look bad for the next 10 years."
* While millions of Americans are looking for jobs so that they can start taking care of their families again, Our Hero is looking for over 5% in new income tax that our own government says will affect 50% of the small business income that we need to put to work to grow new jobs. Smart, isn't it?
* You saw the jobless claims that came out last week. Try 500,000 new jobless claims. Welcome to Recovery Summer.
* The number of subscribers to cable and satellite television fell for the first time in history during the second quarter of this year. People just aren't going to pay the price any more .. not in this economy they're not.
* The Obama Administration is no longer using the "jobs created or saved" nonsense to tout the effectiveness of the stimulus plan. There's a new phrase now .... "lives touched."
* The Obama Administration has now as much as admitted that ObamaCare will increase the cost of medical care in this country and, at the same time, add to our deficit. Exactly the opposite of what was promised when they were trying to get the bill passed earlier this year.
Is this all working out the way you planned it in 2008? Absolutely NOTHING that Obama and his Democrat dog washers are trying is working. In spite of the infantile ravings of Biden, there is no recovery. Millions of Americans are still out of work while Democrats borrow money for such wonderful stimulus projects as teaching Siberians how to deal with their government. Siberians, in case you were educated in our hideous government schools, are Russians .. and the government we're trying to teach them to interact with is located in ... Moscow. There you go. A quick $200,000 shot to hell by Pelosi's big spenders ... and Obama calls this "economic stimulus."
This is what we get when the idiot voters in this country fall for a smooth talking community organizer with absolutely NO executive experience at all, a man surrounded by academics and lawyers ... and who has often professed his disdain for the private sector, and satisfied their collective white guilt... and we put this inexperienced dolt in charge of bringing our economy back. And who does PrezBo put in change of the recovery--Joe Biden who has never been right in his life.
Would you take your sick puppy to a vet that hates dogs? Why, then, would we take a sick private sector economy to a ruler who hates the private sector?
This is all so much worse than I ever could have imagined when Obama got his tira in January of 2009. I've seen incompetence before ... but this character gets the gold medal.
I'm telling ya. If the Democrats remain in power after the November election this year, it's time to buy some luggage. If they remain in power after 2012 ... and this disaster of a president gets a second term ... it's time to pack.
Just take a look at some of the headlines over the past few days:
* Home sales in the United States were down in July. This in spite of dirt-cheap mortgages and greatly reduced prices. The figures are the worse we've seen in this country in over a decade. The experts are telling us that we're in for another drop in home values. Welcome to Recovery Summer!
* The Financial Times says that disappointing US economic figures are driving a surge in demand for low-yielding assets. I'm not sure what that means, but it doesn't sound good. Here's a quote: "Things appear to have come to a head...with markets braced at the edge of a precipice ahead of key US economic data likely to further unnerve investors already concerned by the extent of impending slowdown." Welcome to Recovery Summer!
* This from The Wall Street Journal: Day after day, investors have been hit with more evidence that the economy is stalling. The Dow is down over 4% this month, after an ebullient July that was fueled by impressive earnings results from U.S. companies. The Dow posted another triple-digit loss today and at one point fell below the 10,000 level. Michael Casey has details about the factors driving today's market action. But earnings season is now over and investors are far more focused on potential troubles ahead. What's that Biden said? Oh yeah ... Welcome to Recovery Summer.
* Economist David Rosenberg, apparently someone who has earned a certain degree of respect in economic circles, writes a daily brief for investors. Yesterday he said that the U.S. economy is heading into a 1930s-style depression. He reminded his clients that the Great Depression also had some high points such as positive stock market gains .. but then, as now, those signs of recovery were unsustainable and only provided a false sense of stability.
* Charles Nenner, founder and president of Charles Nenner research says that the Dow is on its way down to 5000 in the next 30 months. He's saying that things "really look bad for the next 10 years."
* While millions of Americans are looking for jobs so that they can start taking care of their families again, Our Hero is looking for over 5% in new income tax that our own government says will affect 50% of the small business income that we need to put to work to grow new jobs. Smart, isn't it?
* You saw the jobless claims that came out last week. Try 500,000 new jobless claims. Welcome to Recovery Summer.
* The number of subscribers to cable and satellite television fell for the first time in history during the second quarter of this year. People just aren't going to pay the price any more .. not in this economy they're not.
* The Obama Administration is no longer using the "jobs created or saved" nonsense to tout the effectiveness of the stimulus plan. There's a new phrase now .... "lives touched."
* The Obama Administration has now as much as admitted that ObamaCare will increase the cost of medical care in this country and, at the same time, add to our deficit. Exactly the opposite of what was promised when they were trying to get the bill passed earlier this year.
Is this all working out the way you planned it in 2008? Absolutely NOTHING that Obama and his Democrat dog washers are trying is working. In spite of the infantile ravings of Biden, there is no recovery. Millions of Americans are still out of work while Democrats borrow money for such wonderful stimulus projects as teaching Siberians how to deal with their government. Siberians, in case you were educated in our hideous government schools, are Russians .. and the government we're trying to teach them to interact with is located in ... Moscow. There you go. A quick $200,000 shot to hell by Pelosi's big spenders ... and Obama calls this "economic stimulus."
This is what we get when the idiot voters in this country fall for a smooth talking community organizer with absolutely NO executive experience at all, a man surrounded by academics and lawyers ... and who has often professed his disdain for the private sector, and satisfied their collective white guilt... and we put this inexperienced dolt in charge of bringing our economy back. And who does PrezBo put in change of the recovery--Joe Biden who has never been right in his life.
Would you take your sick puppy to a vet that hates dogs? Why, then, would we take a sick private sector economy to a ruler who hates the private sector?
This is all so much worse than I ever could have imagined when Obama got his tira in January of 2009. I've seen incompetence before ... but this character gets the gold medal.
I'm telling ya. If the Democrats remain in power after the November election this year, it's time to buy some luggage. If they remain in power after 2012 ... and this disaster of a president gets a second term ... it's time to pack.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
A few facts
Here are some facts that you can throw at your liberal friends every time you seek to talk about government spending, and all they can come up with is "Well the Iraq war cost us .......". Randall Hoven of the American Thinker has a few facts to chew on:
* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.
* Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.
* Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.
* Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.
* Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.
* The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).
* During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)
* Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.
* Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.
* Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.
* Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.
* Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.
* The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).
* During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)
Ya just can't make this shit up!
I am waiting for someone to pull the "I gotcha!" out from under this one .. because it is so absurd that I have a hard time believing that even our government could be this dense. First of all, here is a figure I can believe: $194,213. That is how much the Government Accountability Office estimates it has cost for every job "created" by Obama's stimulus plan. Is there a sane American left who does not understand that the stimulus plan was never anything other than a compilation of Democrat politician spending dreams and schemes?
But ... as they say .. you ain't heard nuthin yet. Now we apparently a new way to classify a "job created" or a "job saved." Apparently these are no longer the terms of choice for the GAO. They have decided to go with a kinder, gentler phrase ..... "lives touched."
No I'm not kidding, folks. The Daily Caller has a quote from a spokesperson from the CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company explaining:
"'Lives Touched' is a figure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) uses to track the amount of people who have been positively affected by the Recovery Act funds. This total would include people who have been provided full time employment (i.e. saved and created jobs) through the Recovery Act and people who at some point have supported a project funded by the Recovery Act."
You want to talk about lives touched? Talk about the millions of Americans who can't find jobs right now because of the anti-business policies of the Democrats and the Obama administration. Now there are some lives touched.
Let's see how long this GAO "lives touched" bat shit lasts.
But ... as they say .. you ain't heard nuthin yet. Now we apparently a new way to classify a "job created" or a "job saved." Apparently these are no longer the terms of choice for the GAO. They have decided to go with a kinder, gentler phrase ..... "lives touched."
No I'm not kidding, folks. The Daily Caller has a quote from a spokesperson from the CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company explaining:
"'Lives Touched' is a figure that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) uses to track the amount of people who have been positively affected by the Recovery Act funds. This total would include people who have been provided full time employment (i.e. saved and created jobs) through the Recovery Act and people who at some point have supported a project funded by the Recovery Act."
You want to talk about lives touched? Talk about the millions of Americans who can't find jobs right now because of the anti-business policies of the Democrats and the Obama administration. Now there are some lives touched.
Let's see how long this GAO "lives touched" bat shit lasts.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Alternative Universe
Ummm hello??
Is anybody out there just a wee bit concerned about the fact that Iran is now, officially, a nuclear-capable state? They have been working on their nuclear plans for years, and thanks to the help of the Russians, they finally managed to get it done. Iran now has an operational nuclear plant and, on Saturday, loaded the enriched uranium into the reactor for the first time. Any sane person knows that this is absolutely not the last step in the nuclear process for Iran. It is only a matter of time - one year, according to Obama - in which Iran could enrich that uranium to destructive levels. Make no mistake - nuclear weapons are on the way. In fact, on the same day that Iran started up its nuclear reactor, it also launched the country's first domestically built long-range unmanned bomber aircraft, calling it an "ambassador of death" to Iran's enemies. Sounds like a country that is out for peace, doesn't it?
The reaction from the White House: this is "no threat" to anyone's security. How unbelievably dense must Iran think we are? The mad mullah Ahmadinejad has called for the extinction of Israel .. to "blow Israel off the map." He has defied the entire world in achieving his goals of a nuclear state, and with what repercussions? Exactly. We have done nothing and we will continue to do nothing. The only choice we have at this point is to react to any provocation that may occur. I'm sure Israel is thrilled. At this point, considering that Obama is the one with his finger on the button, who knows if we would even come to Israel's defense?
Is anybody out there just a wee bit concerned about the fact that Iran is now, officially, a nuclear-capable state? They have been working on their nuclear plans for years, and thanks to the help of the Russians, they finally managed to get it done. Iran now has an operational nuclear plant and, on Saturday, loaded the enriched uranium into the reactor for the first time. Any sane person knows that this is absolutely not the last step in the nuclear process for Iran. It is only a matter of time - one year, according to Obama - in which Iran could enrich that uranium to destructive levels. Make no mistake - nuclear weapons are on the way. In fact, on the same day that Iran started up its nuclear reactor, it also launched the country's first domestically built long-range unmanned bomber aircraft, calling it an "ambassador of death" to Iran's enemies. Sounds like a country that is out for peace, doesn't it?
The reaction from the White House: this is "no threat" to anyone's security. How unbelievably dense must Iran think we are? The mad mullah Ahmadinejad has called for the extinction of Israel .. to "blow Israel off the map." He has defied the entire world in achieving his goals of a nuclear state, and with what repercussions? Exactly. We have done nothing and we will continue to do nothing. The only choice we have at this point is to react to any provocation that may occur. I'm sure Israel is thrilled. At this point, considering that Obama is the one with his finger on the button, who knows if we would even come to Israel's defense?
Monday, August 16, 2010
Oh no I didn't!
You can't imagine how shocked I was to hear our Community Organizer promote the mosque at Ground Zero. On Friday evening, in an observance of Ramadan, here's what Obama had to say about the mosque:
"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country ... That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances ... This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."
Wow. Is this guy sharp or what? Am I the only one getting a bit weary of Obama bringing his community organizer mentality to the podium of the White House? The issue has never been whether or not Muslims have the right to build a Mosque - community center - or whatever they chose to call it. The issue has been WHERE they want to build it. Obama made this statement in the presence of some of this country's most influential Muslims. This was an opportunity for him to address the sensitivity Americans have to the building of this Mosque on the site of a building damaged by the 9/11 attacks ... a site just two blocks from Ground Zero. Obama could have simply said something like this: "The American people have a deep appreciation for freedom of religion and have shown through the history of this country their tolerance of different religious viewpoints. All they're asking of the Muslim community is recognition that many, perhaps most Americans consider the location of this planned Islamic Community Center as hallowed ground. The landing gear from one of the aircraft flown into the World Trade Towers crashed into the very building that will be demolished for the construction of this Islamic center. As President, and on behalf of the people that I represent, I would ask you to reconsider your plans for this project."
But nooooo. Not Barack Obama! The next day, Obama decided to "clarify" his comments:
"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," Obama continued. "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about. And I think it's very important as difficult as some of these issues are that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about."
So .. there you have it. Not one mention of Ground Zero. Not one mention of the sensitivities and concerns of the American people. In fact, he specifically said that he would not comment on that. How's that for leadership? What an amazing disaster this man is.
"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country ... That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances ... This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."
Wow. Is this guy sharp or what? Am I the only one getting a bit weary of Obama bringing his community organizer mentality to the podium of the White House? The issue has never been whether or not Muslims have the right to build a Mosque - community center - or whatever they chose to call it. The issue has been WHERE they want to build it. Obama made this statement in the presence of some of this country's most influential Muslims. This was an opportunity for him to address the sensitivity Americans have to the building of this Mosque on the site of a building damaged by the 9/11 attacks ... a site just two blocks from Ground Zero. Obama could have simply said something like this: "The American people have a deep appreciation for freedom of religion and have shown through the history of this country their tolerance of different religious viewpoints. All they're asking of the Muslim community is recognition that many, perhaps most Americans consider the location of this planned Islamic Community Center as hallowed ground. The landing gear from one of the aircraft flown into the World Trade Towers crashed into the very building that will be demolished for the construction of this Islamic center. As President, and on behalf of the people that I represent, I would ask you to reconsider your plans for this project."
But nooooo. Not Barack Obama! The next day, Obama decided to "clarify" his comments:
"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," Obama continued. "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about. And I think it's very important as difficult as some of these issues are that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about."
So .. there you have it. Not one mention of Ground Zero. Not one mention of the sensitivities and concerns of the American people. In fact, he specifically said that he would not comment on that. How's that for leadership? What an amazing disaster this man is.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Obama and Dems are ButtBoys for the Unions
We've heard the rhetoric from Democrats: Republicans are in bed with the oil companies. The Republicans favor Wall Street over Main Street. Republicans are on the side of evil health insurance companies. Democrats love to point the finger at Republicans and the influence of their "special interests." But who are the special interests that keep the Democrat Party awash in funds? The anti-business party has to be getting campaign donations from somewhere .. they have to be at the end of somebody's lobbying agenda. So who is it?
Oh come on now. Surely you already know.
The labor unions. The teachers unions. BP may be the current corporate boogey man ...but the damage done to the Gulf ecosystem is already proving to be much less than estimated. In my estimation teachers unions have done far more damage to our nation and our culture this year than BP, and the damage lasts generations. If Americans had a clue about the nature of the damage being done to their children by the refusal of teacher's unions to accept ideas such as school choice and teacher accountability these unions would have been run out of town a decade ago. Our government schools exist to indoctrinate our children into how to be good employees and loyal government subjects. The teacher's unions are willing participants in this effort.
I understand that there are good patriotic union members, and I understand that unions sometimes stumble into positive action .. but by and large unions exist today as organizations designed to help workers escape workplace accountability and to fund economic liberty's greatest enemy, the Democrat Party. Unions are the number one reason so many of our local and state governments are facing tremendous budget problems right now. The wage and pension benefits negotiated by unions - negotiated in return for massive campaign contributions - are a threat to local economies coast to coast. They have managed to scam politicians into a generational theft scheme, which has now left our country, our cities, our states, our taxpayers, deep in the red. This entitlement mentality that permeates from union goons is ultimately paid for by you - the taxpayers - because our gutless politicians are too afraid to lose their support and ultimately their jobs. Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner has the painful truth. These are facts that you and everyone should know .. facts that will demonstrate just how influential these unions are over Democrat politicians.
Public employees and their unions have contributed more money to the 2010 elections than the employees, executives and PACs of every oil company combined, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The $7.9 million that the sector gave to Democrats is more than the Republican haul from Wall Street, insurance or lobbyists.
The public employee sector spent $40 million on lobbying in the first six months of this year -- more than health maintenance organizations, commercial banks and the defense/aerospace industry, according to CRP.
Democrats have raised $1.7 million this year from the American Federation of Teachers, more than Republicans have raised from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, combined.
AFT's PAC spent $21 million in the 2008 election, more than certified "special interests" such as the National Association of Realtors PAC and the National Rifle Association PAC. Combine the PAC spending of the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, and the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, and you're at about 36 percent of AFT's spending.
Stunning, isn't it? If you believe that these labor unions, and the teachers unions, truly have your best interests at heart .. that is probably because you grew up in a government school where you were educated to believe that from a young age. The teacher union bailout vote this week is absolutely nothing but Democrat pandering to one of their largest supporters. How hard is this to understand? There is one thing the Democrats got right. This vote was about jobs .. only it wasn't really saving jobs in your community but about saving their own jobs in Washington.
Oh come on now. Surely you already know.
The labor unions. The teachers unions. BP may be the current corporate boogey man ...but the damage done to the Gulf ecosystem is already proving to be much less than estimated. In my estimation teachers unions have done far more damage to our nation and our culture this year than BP, and the damage lasts generations. If Americans had a clue about the nature of the damage being done to their children by the refusal of teacher's unions to accept ideas such as school choice and teacher accountability these unions would have been run out of town a decade ago. Our government schools exist to indoctrinate our children into how to be good employees and loyal government subjects. The teacher's unions are willing participants in this effort.
I understand that there are good patriotic union members, and I understand that unions sometimes stumble into positive action .. but by and large unions exist today as organizations designed to help workers escape workplace accountability and to fund economic liberty's greatest enemy, the Democrat Party. Unions are the number one reason so many of our local and state governments are facing tremendous budget problems right now. The wage and pension benefits negotiated by unions - negotiated in return for massive campaign contributions - are a threat to local economies coast to coast. They have managed to scam politicians into a generational theft scheme, which has now left our country, our cities, our states, our taxpayers, deep in the red. This entitlement mentality that permeates from union goons is ultimately paid for by you - the taxpayers - because our gutless politicians are too afraid to lose their support and ultimately their jobs. Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner has the painful truth. These are facts that you and everyone should know .. facts that will demonstrate just how influential these unions are over Democrat politicians.
Public employees and their unions have contributed more money to the 2010 elections than the employees, executives and PACs of every oil company combined, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The $7.9 million that the sector gave to Democrats is more than the Republican haul from Wall Street, insurance or lobbyists.
The public employee sector spent $40 million on lobbying in the first six months of this year -- more than health maintenance organizations, commercial banks and the defense/aerospace industry, according to CRP.
Democrats have raised $1.7 million this year from the American Federation of Teachers, more than Republicans have raised from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Bank of America, combined.
AFT's PAC spent $21 million in the 2008 election, more than certified "special interests" such as the National Association of Realtors PAC and the National Rifle Association PAC. Combine the PAC spending of the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, America's Health Insurance Plans, and the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, and you're at about 36 percent of AFT's spending.
Stunning, isn't it? If you believe that these labor unions, and the teachers unions, truly have your best interests at heart .. that is probably because you grew up in a government school where you were educated to believe that from a young age. The teacher union bailout vote this week is absolutely nothing but Democrat pandering to one of their largest supporters. How hard is this to understand? There is one thing the Democrats got right. This vote was about jobs .. only it wasn't really saving jobs in your community but about saving their own jobs in Washington.
Monday, August 09, 2010
A little reality and truth
The Democrat strategy for this upcoming election is abundantly clear: they are running against George Bush. The language on the network shows lately point to the "Bush recession" and the "failed policies of George Bush." Democrats are trying their best to link Republicans to George Bush. This is particularly evident when it comes to the battle over the Bush tax cuts. Democrats and Obama administration officials like to tell us that we simply cannot afford to continue tax cuts for the evil rich. In other words, the evil rich need to pay more of their 'fair share.' But there are a few facts about the Bush tax cuts (and tax cuts in general) that you should keep in mind. These come from the Heritage Foundation:
Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly ALL of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.
Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
There is one fact that stands out to me: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. If the Obama administration's true goal is to get businesses hiring and investing, increases taxes and maintaining economic uncertainty clearly isn't going to do that. What the administration SHOULD consider are policies which will give businesses true incentives to hire. Obama should focus on growing the economy rather than generating more tax revenue with tax increases. For example, repealing or at least lowering corporate tax rates would be a huge help to corporations at this time. Ironically enough, countries like England are currently lowering their corporate tax rates. Meanwhile, we can only assume that any taxes on the rich or evil corporations is only going to sky-rocket. Would continuing the Bush tax cuts cost money? Well sure .. in the short term. Clearly you would expect an increase in revenue over the short term with an increase in tax rates, but as the high producers adjust their behavior to meet the punishment of increased tax rates you would see government revenue from those with increased taxes start to fall. Remember ... more than half of the evil rich people who will be hit with these Obama tax increases are small business owners. These are the people we need to grow our economy and produce jobs. I would submit to you, though, that Obama's intense dislike of the private sector, and his dedication to wealth seizure and re-distribution overweighs any desire for jobs growth in the private sector. Obama truly believes that money spent by government will do a better job of prompting economic growth than money spent by the parties who actually earned it. If you agree, Obama is your man. Keep that obscene bumper sticker on your car.
Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly ALL of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.
Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.
Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.
Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.
Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.
Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.
Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.
There is one fact that stands out to me: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. If the Obama administration's true goal is to get businesses hiring and investing, increases taxes and maintaining economic uncertainty clearly isn't going to do that. What the administration SHOULD consider are policies which will give businesses true incentives to hire. Obama should focus on growing the economy rather than generating more tax revenue with tax increases. For example, repealing or at least lowering corporate tax rates would be a huge help to corporations at this time. Ironically enough, countries like England are currently lowering their corporate tax rates. Meanwhile, we can only assume that any taxes on the rich or evil corporations is only going to sky-rocket. Would continuing the Bush tax cuts cost money? Well sure .. in the short term. Clearly you would expect an increase in revenue over the short term with an increase in tax rates, but as the high producers adjust their behavior to meet the punishment of increased tax rates you would see government revenue from those with increased taxes start to fall. Remember ... more than half of the evil rich people who will be hit with these Obama tax increases are small business owners. These are the people we need to grow our economy and produce jobs. I would submit to you, though, that Obama's intense dislike of the private sector, and his dedication to wealth seizure and re-distribution overweighs any desire for jobs growth in the private sector. Obama truly believes that money spent by government will do a better job of prompting economic growth than money spent by the parties who actually earned it. If you agree, Obama is your man. Keep that obscene bumper sticker on your car.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Our esteemed Community Organizer spent some time pandering to the unions yesterday. It was at a speech to the AFL-CIO where he came up with this quote: "You have a perfect economic storm that's hit our middle class directly in every region, every segment of this country."
Perfect for what? For government to swoop in and solve all of your problems. Although, that ALWAYS comes with a price. This is a price that liberals try to convince you is worth it - more government, most taxes, more redistribution. In the end you are to believe that you would never have weathered the storm without your trusty government officials there to guide you.
This is a prime example of never letting a good crisis go to waste. This "perfect economic storm" means that it is perfect for government and for unions. But as for the private sector?
Oh and while we are talking about pandering to the unions. Our Community Organizer also pledged to the AFL-CIO that he would "keep on fighting to pass the Employee Free Choice Act," otherwise known as the card check bill. That is just what Americans want right now - more power concentrated in the hands of unions and Washington. But ... Obama knows where the votes are. He knows that pandering to the unions is a big part of keeping Democrats (and himself) in charge.
If for no other reason than to reduce the power and influence of unions in our economy, the Democrats must be removed from power in Washington. For the most part, the time for unions has come and gone. They are a destructive force in our schools and a destructive force in our economy.
Perfect for what? For government to swoop in and solve all of your problems. Although, that ALWAYS comes with a price. This is a price that liberals try to convince you is worth it - more government, most taxes, more redistribution. In the end you are to believe that you would never have weathered the storm without your trusty government officials there to guide you.
This is a prime example of never letting a good crisis go to waste. This "perfect economic storm" means that it is perfect for government and for unions. But as for the private sector?
Oh and while we are talking about pandering to the unions. Our Community Organizer also pledged to the AFL-CIO that he would "keep on fighting to pass the Employee Free Choice Act," otherwise known as the card check bill. That is just what Americans want right now - more power concentrated in the hands of unions and Washington. But ... Obama knows where the votes are. He knows that pandering to the unions is a big part of keeping Democrats (and himself) in charge.
If for no other reason than to reduce the power and influence of unions in our economy, the Democrats must be removed from power in Washington. For the most part, the time for unions has come and gone. They are a destructive force in our schools and a destructive force in our economy.
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
ObamaCare--Missouri ain't buyinng it..
This may be one of the most memorable political quotes from 2010. It came from Princess Nancy Pelosi. She was speaking about ObamaCare, and she said that Democrats were going to have to "pass the bill so you can find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy." Well, that worked for Pelosi and Obama. Did it work for you?
Well ... it would seem that the voters of Missouri have now seen what is in the bill ... and they don't like it; not even a little bit. There was a little vote in Missouri yesterday. Well, not quite so little if you're an ObamaZombie. About 70% of the Missouri voters supported a measure on the ballot that would prohibit the government from requiring people to buy health insurance or to penalize them for not buying it.
Obama is also having some problems with the courts on Obamacare. The recent ruling in Virginia on the ObamaCare challenge is a prime example. Judge Hudson believes that "never before has the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far." Are you hearing this? The Obama administration has managed to push our Constitution to its absolute limit to the point where the courts cannot determine whether or not this is even within the bounds of our Constitution. Judge Hudson goes on to say, "While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate-and tax-a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed this issue. No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce."
What is the matter with the "decisions have consequences" mantra? OK, fine. So someone makes the choice not to buy health insurance. What does that mean for them? In the past it meant that you head to the emergency room for your ordinary medical care and the insured patients and taxpayers end up paying for your irresponsibility through higher hospital bills and taxes. Now this just isn't a workable model. We need to return to a system where individuals are expected to show at least a modicum of responsibility for their own lives ... and where they will be expected to face certain consequences if they do not. Let's put it bluntly. If someone makes stupid lifestyle and financial choices, and then reaches the point where those stupid choices have created a situation whereby that person is unable to adequately address resulting illnesses ... that situation should not constitute a liability for another American who has paid attention to the details of a responsible and healthy life. When people figure out that the failure to address their own healthcare needs and a healthy lifestyle is going to work out very poorly in the end --- and that includes their not being able to use the government to plunder those who have lived more responsibly --- things will change.
Just remember that to many "rulers" in Washington, the Constitution is an impediment to The Community Organizers' "fundamental transformation" of The United States of America. It would be a nation built on a vaporous definition of "fairness" and redistribution of wealth and resources, rather than a nation built on hard work, individual responsibility and freedom. Slowly but surely, these people in Washington have managed to chip away at our Constitution for years, all in efforts to promise the dumbmasses more and more, for the sole purpose of being re-elected and maintaining power.
Well ... it would seem that the voters of Missouri have now seen what is in the bill ... and they don't like it; not even a little bit. There was a little vote in Missouri yesterday. Well, not quite so little if you're an ObamaZombie. About 70% of the Missouri voters supported a measure on the ballot that would prohibit the government from requiring people to buy health insurance or to penalize them for not buying it.
Obama is also having some problems with the courts on Obamacare. The recent ruling in Virginia on the ObamaCare challenge is a prime example. Judge Hudson believes that "never before has the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause been extended this far." Are you hearing this? The Obama administration has managed to push our Constitution to its absolute limit to the point where the courts cannot determine whether or not this is even within the bounds of our Constitution. Judge Hudson goes on to say, "While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate-and tax-a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has squarely addressed this issue. No reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person's decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce."
What is the matter with the "decisions have consequences" mantra? OK, fine. So someone makes the choice not to buy health insurance. What does that mean for them? In the past it meant that you head to the emergency room for your ordinary medical care and the insured patients and taxpayers end up paying for your irresponsibility through higher hospital bills and taxes. Now this just isn't a workable model. We need to return to a system where individuals are expected to show at least a modicum of responsibility for their own lives ... and where they will be expected to face certain consequences if they do not. Let's put it bluntly. If someone makes stupid lifestyle and financial choices, and then reaches the point where those stupid choices have created a situation whereby that person is unable to adequately address resulting illnesses ... that situation should not constitute a liability for another American who has paid attention to the details of a responsible and healthy life. When people figure out that the failure to address their own healthcare needs and a healthy lifestyle is going to work out very poorly in the end --- and that includes their not being able to use the government to plunder those who have lived more responsibly --- things will change.
Just remember that to many "rulers" in Washington, the Constitution is an impediment to The Community Organizers' "fundamental transformation" of The United States of America. It would be a nation built on a vaporous definition of "fairness" and redistribution of wealth and resources, rather than a nation built on hard work, individual responsibility and freedom. Slowly but surely, these people in Washington have managed to chip away at our Constitution for years, all in efforts to promise the dumbmasses more and more, for the sole purpose of being re-elected and maintaining power.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
I gotta pee---Take me to Wikileaks
So as you know, Wikileaks has posted a crapload of secret military reports about the Afghan war, including covert operations against Taliban figures. They claim their goal is to reveal "unethical behavior," by the government and corporations.
On their website they write "All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people."
This is pure bullshit, to use the scientific term.
The fact is, their goal is to only "expose" people they don't like – meaning the United States military - and get worldwide props for it.
The head of Wikiliks, Julian Assange would argue that their role is to shine a "light on the everyday brutality ...of war." But of course, he's sympathetic only to those we are fighting against. He says he wants to help "people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards."
Can you guess who the bastards are?
Look, we don't need him to tell us that war sucks. No one wants to see our troops or innocent civilians dead. But we fight to eradicate an evil- and in this case it's an evil that this douchebag is helping. Remember that the U.S. doesn't send suicide bombers into crowded restaurants, or behead journalists, or fly planes into buildings. We are waging a war against scum - and yet Julie chooses to thwart us instead.
It makes me wonder that if Julie had secret documents that harmed our enemies - would he share those? Since they don't fit into his hit list of evil "governments and corporations," hell no. So while his majestic, but wholly one-side strategy of transparency continues - it's America that's being attacked.
Secondly, whatever Julie thinks is "unethical behavior" is only unethical if you're an idiot. For example, saying it's a war crime to have an enemy hit list may be true if it's at a children's birthday party. But in war, it's the whole point. The entire war is a hit list, you doll-haired dipwad.
But see, Julie isn't doing this to save lives - he's doing it for himself. He enjoys "creating systems on a grand scale, so, in the end, he gets back at daddy and reaps the accolades that come with it.
May a terrorist mistake him for a sexy goat.
On their website they write "All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people."
This is pure bullshit, to use the scientific term.
The fact is, their goal is to only "expose" people they don't like – meaning the United States military - and get worldwide props for it.
The head of Wikiliks, Julian Assange would argue that their role is to shine a "light on the everyday brutality ...of war." But of course, he's sympathetic only to those we are fighting against. He says he wants to help "people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards."
Can you guess who the bastards are?
Look, we don't need him to tell us that war sucks. No one wants to see our troops or innocent civilians dead. But we fight to eradicate an evil- and in this case it's an evil that this douchebag is helping. Remember that the U.S. doesn't send suicide bombers into crowded restaurants, or behead journalists, or fly planes into buildings. We are waging a war against scum - and yet Julie chooses to thwart us instead.
It makes me wonder that if Julie had secret documents that harmed our enemies - would he share those? Since they don't fit into his hit list of evil "governments and corporations," hell no. So while his majestic, but wholly one-side strategy of transparency continues - it's America that's being attacked.
Secondly, whatever Julie thinks is "unethical behavior" is only unethical if you're an idiot. For example, saying it's a war crime to have an enemy hit list may be true if it's at a children's birthday party. But in war, it's the whole point. The entire war is a hit list, you doll-haired dipwad.
But see, Julie isn't doing this to save lives - he's doing it for himself. He enjoys "creating systems on a grand scale, so, in the end, he gets back at daddy and reaps the accolades that come with it.
May a terrorist mistake him for a sexy goat.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Journolist
So, thanks to the Daily Caller, more emails are emerging from "Journolist," that secret list of liberal media hacks - and guess what, they're about Sarah Palin.
And surprise: they aren't positive!
First, they focused on how the media could help Obama beat McCain, after Sarah was picked as a running mate.
Jonathan Stein from Mother Jones loved the idea that the pick should be labeled sexist.
He writes: "That's excellent! If enough people - people on this list? - write that the pick is sexist, you'll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket."
Thank God he capitalized "single!"
But my fave? Politico reporter Ben Adler, now at Newsweek, writing,
"... doesn't leaving sad baby without its mother while she campaigns weaken that family values argument?"
Maybe so Ben, although I wonder how you know her baby is "sad." Perhaps you could share your expertise in this area, douchebag.
So, here's what we've learned so far from the leaked emails:
-they desperately wanted Obama to win
-they cried like little girls when he did. (He's their Justin Bieber.)
-they conspired to label anyone who disagreed with them as racists
-they hate Sarah Palin.
So let me get this straight: everything we see in these missives is exactly what we suspected about the mainstream media all along. All of these revelations boil down to one supreme epiphany: they completely fulfill the mundane, predictable stereotype of the contemporary media hack.
Well, actually: it's only an epiphany if you just got here.
The real point: With the exception of Fox News, a few mags, a handful of talk radio hosts and some vital websites -the idea of free-thinking journalism is dead. These chuckleheads - Adler, Ackerman, that toolbag Jeffrey Toobin - try sooo hard to swagger via email, yet they come off less rebellious than Kenneth from 30 Rock. They're the Eddie Haskells of modern media: slobbering kittens reeking from the desperate sweat of sycophancy.
And surprise: they aren't positive!
First, they focused on how the media could help Obama beat McCain, after Sarah was picked as a running mate.
Jonathan Stein from Mother Jones loved the idea that the pick should be labeled sexist.
He writes: "That's excellent! If enough people - people on this list? - write that the pick is sexist, you'll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket."
Thank God he capitalized "single!"
But my fave? Politico reporter Ben Adler, now at Newsweek, writing,
"... doesn't leaving sad baby without its mother while she campaigns weaken that family values argument?"
Maybe so Ben, although I wonder how you know her baby is "sad." Perhaps you could share your expertise in this area, douchebag.
So, here's what we've learned so far from the leaked emails:
-they desperately wanted Obama to win
-they cried like little girls when he did. (He's their Justin Bieber.)
-they conspired to label anyone who disagreed with them as racists
-they hate Sarah Palin.
So let me get this straight: everything we see in these missives is exactly what we suspected about the mainstream media all along. All of these revelations boil down to one supreme epiphany: they completely fulfill the mundane, predictable stereotype of the contemporary media hack.
Well, actually: it's only an epiphany if you just got here.
The real point: With the exception of Fox News, a few mags, a handful of talk radio hosts and some vital websites -the idea of free-thinking journalism is dead. These chuckleheads - Adler, Ackerman, that toolbag Jeffrey Toobin - try sooo hard to swagger via email, yet they come off less rebellious than Kenneth from 30 Rock. They're the Eddie Haskells of modern media: slobbering kittens reeking from the desperate sweat of sycophancy.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Looking for a job? Here's the problem...
Do the businesses out there have the money to expand? Yes, they do. The desire is there as well. What business doesn't want to grow? So ... what's the problem? Why did you or someone in your family spend the week spinning their wheels looking for a job? What's holding things up?
Consider:
Major corporations are sitting on $2 trillion dollars in cash right now.
Corporate profits are up.
Banks have another $1trillion in excess reserves
As National Review's economics editor Larry Kudlow points out, that's $3 trillion dollars being held in the private sector that could be financing the greatest job-creation and business growth. What's more .. this money could be financing growth in the private sector, not in government. So ... what's the problem?
Obama and the Democrats .. that's the problem.
Just a few things to consider:
This new so-called financial reform bill the Democrats have just passed calls for the creating of 243 new regulatory rule makings that will affect businesses across the country. Tell me .. are you going to take that cash out of your reserves and start spending before you have a clear understanding of what those new rules are going to be and how they are going to affect your business? There is the law of unintended consequences out there to deal with.
Then there's ObamaCare. Tax hikes and new regulations. Businesses are still trying to figure out how this is going to affect their bottom line. For instance ... do they keep their employee health care benefits or let the government just do it all?
Oh yeah .. then there's Cap and Tax. Obama is using a spill of oil in the Gulf of Mexico as a reason to pass a bill limiting carbon emissions from American businesses. This could be the largest tax increase in our nation's history. So ... draw that money out of reserves and stick your financial neck out while the future of Cap and Tax is still unclear?
America still the second highest corporate tax rate in the world! Maybe all that money these corporations are sitting on could be better invested overseas where the tax consequences aren't quite so harsh.
The fact is that businesses don't really understand what their relationship is going to be with the Imperial Federal Government in the years to come. Taxes going up? More regulations and bureaucrats to gum up the works? Will ObamaCare become the disaster that so many expect?
I don't care how much you love Barack Obama. You could think that he is just the most amazing and talented human being to ever walk the halls of the White House. The fact is that American business doesn't like this guy. He frightens them. Businessmen know of Obama's history of negative statements toward the free enterprise system. These men know that Obama once referred to them as "the enemy." Corporate America, as a matter of fact, has just recently begun to acknowledge their dislike of the current administration. Private small business owners ... where 80% of the jobs are ... have been wary of this guy since day one.
Do you want to see these businesses start hiring? Well .. that's going to take a while. The effects of all of these new laws and regulations are going to have to make themselves known. That won't happen in weeks or months. One thing would help .. and that would be for the voters to wake up and chase as many of these left wing anti-capitalists power-hungry Democrat politicians out of office as possible in November.
In the meantime ... if you're unemployed, and if you aren't looking for a government job ... and you vote Democrat in November .... Well, let's just say that the economy isn't your only problem. You may just flat-out be unemployable.
Oh .. and are you wondering why the Democrat's wonderful new financial overhaul bill doesn't apply to automobile dealers? One word .. Lobbyists. Didn't Obama tell us that lobbyists were going to be on the outs under his rule? Oh well .....
Consider:
Major corporations are sitting on $2 trillion dollars in cash right now.
Corporate profits are up.
Banks have another $1trillion in excess reserves
As National Review's economics editor Larry Kudlow points out, that's $3 trillion dollars being held in the private sector that could be financing the greatest job-creation and business growth. What's more .. this money could be financing growth in the private sector, not in government. So ... what's the problem?
Obama and the Democrats .. that's the problem.
Just a few things to consider:
This new so-called financial reform bill the Democrats have just passed calls for the creating of 243 new regulatory rule makings that will affect businesses across the country. Tell me .. are you going to take that cash out of your reserves and start spending before you have a clear understanding of what those new rules are going to be and how they are going to affect your business? There is the law of unintended consequences out there to deal with.
Then there's ObamaCare. Tax hikes and new regulations. Businesses are still trying to figure out how this is going to affect their bottom line. For instance ... do they keep their employee health care benefits or let the government just do it all?
Oh yeah .. then there's Cap and Tax. Obama is using a spill of oil in the Gulf of Mexico as a reason to pass a bill limiting carbon emissions from American businesses. This could be the largest tax increase in our nation's history. So ... draw that money out of reserves and stick your financial neck out while the future of Cap and Tax is still unclear?
America still the second highest corporate tax rate in the world! Maybe all that money these corporations are sitting on could be better invested overseas where the tax consequences aren't quite so harsh.
The fact is that businesses don't really understand what their relationship is going to be with the Imperial Federal Government in the years to come. Taxes going up? More regulations and bureaucrats to gum up the works? Will ObamaCare become the disaster that so many expect?
I don't care how much you love Barack Obama. You could think that he is just the most amazing and talented human being to ever walk the halls of the White House. The fact is that American business doesn't like this guy. He frightens them. Businessmen know of Obama's history of negative statements toward the free enterprise system. These men know that Obama once referred to them as "the enemy." Corporate America, as a matter of fact, has just recently begun to acknowledge their dislike of the current administration. Private small business owners ... where 80% of the jobs are ... have been wary of this guy since day one.
Do you want to see these businesses start hiring? Well .. that's going to take a while. The effects of all of these new laws and regulations are going to have to make themselves known. That won't happen in weeks or months. One thing would help .. and that would be for the voters to wake up and chase as many of these left wing anti-capitalists power-hungry Democrat politicians out of office as possible in November.
In the meantime ... if you're unemployed, and if you aren't looking for a government job ... and you vote Democrat in November .... Well, let's just say that the economy isn't your only problem. You may just flat-out be unemployable.
Oh .. and are you wondering why the Democrat's wonderful new financial overhaul bill doesn't apply to automobile dealers? One word .. Lobbyists. Didn't Obama tell us that lobbyists were going to be on the outs under his rule? Oh well .....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)