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 .....
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Who be da racist?
You've probably heard by now that the NAACP has formally accused the tea parties of racism. The resolution .. debated behind closed doors at the convention .. "calls on the tea party and all people of good will to repudiate the racist element and activities within the tea party,".
OK ... let me 'splain this to you. It's really not all that hard. So easy to understand, in fact, that a government education should be all you need to "get it."
The Community Organizer is in trouble, and he's dragging down the Democrat Socialist party with him. Even Obama's chief mouthpiece is suggesting that the Republicans might take control of the house in the November elections. Independents are bailing on Obama as they come to realize the damage he's not only done to our economy .. but to the economic futures of our children and grandchildren.
It's time for damage control. Time to head to the solid and dependable Democrat voter base and get them energized. And just who are those solid and dependable Democrat voters? Union workers and blacks. So now we find Obama's travels putting an emphasis on speeches to and photo ops with union workers. While Obama concentrates on the unions, the NAACP is working on the black voters. The tactic is simple and effective. Scream racism. Put the race pimps on horseback and run them up and down the urban streets shouting "The racists are coming! The racists are coming!"
I suppose this is going to work to some extent. Just as there are wizened citizens who will buy that "if you vote for Republicans they're going to take away your Social Security" nonsense; there are surely blacks that will now rush to the polls in November to turn back the "racists." The left has a problem though. They have so overused the "racism" word that most people in this country - and many blacks - now consider the word to have little serious meaning. The real-world working definition of the word "racist" now would read something like this: "Any action or utterance seen as opposing any belief or position held by a person who is not a member of the Caucasian race."
The NAACP and Obama dog washers of various stripes are going to find out that black Americans worry about the futures of their children the same way white Americans do, and they recognize that the massive debt we are incurring under Obama's rule will ultimately condemn their children to a life of servitude to government.
By the way ... the NAACP cited this urban legend about all of those tea partiers shouting epithets and racial insults at black members of congress back during the ObamaCare drama. You do realize that there are no audio or video recordings out there which support this myth, don't you? Well ... you are now.
OK ... let me 'splain this to you. It's really not all that hard. So easy to understand, in fact, that a government education should be all you need to "get it."
The Community Organizer is in trouble, and he's dragging down the Democrat Socialist party with him. Even Obama's chief mouthpiece is suggesting that the Republicans might take control of the house in the November elections. Independents are bailing on Obama as they come to realize the damage he's not only done to our economy .. but to the economic futures of our children and grandchildren.
It's time for damage control. Time to head to the solid and dependable Democrat voter base and get them energized. And just who are those solid and dependable Democrat voters? Union workers and blacks. So now we find Obama's travels putting an emphasis on speeches to and photo ops with union workers. While Obama concentrates on the unions, the NAACP is working on the black voters. The tactic is simple and effective. Scream racism. Put the race pimps on horseback and run them up and down the urban streets shouting "The racists are coming! The racists are coming!"
I suppose this is going to work to some extent. Just as there are wizened citizens who will buy that "if you vote for Republicans they're going to take away your Social Security" nonsense; there are surely blacks that will now rush to the polls in November to turn back the "racists." The left has a problem though. They have so overused the "racism" word that most people in this country - and many blacks - now consider the word to have little serious meaning. The real-world working definition of the word "racist" now would read something like this: "Any action or utterance seen as opposing any belief or position held by a person who is not a member of the Caucasian race."
The NAACP and Obama dog washers of various stripes are going to find out that black Americans worry about the futures of their children the same way white Americans do, and they recognize that the massive debt we are incurring under Obama's rule will ultimately condemn their children to a life of servitude to government.
By the way ... the NAACP cited this urban legend about all of those tea partiers shouting epithets and racial insults at black members of congress back during the ObamaCare drama. You do realize that there are no audio or video recordings out there which support this myth, don't you? Well ... you are now.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Define poor?
So Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul is at it again.
At a forum with Democratic opponent Jack Conway in Kentucky, Paul said America's poor, are "enormously better off than the rest of the world."
He cited an old Russian propaganda film that showed poor Yanks with color TVs. The story goes that while this flick was meant to demonize capitalism, it backfired when the Russkies saw all those TVs. Rand added that "It doesn't mean we can't do better. But we have to...be proud of ...capitalism."
Some Dems are knocking Rand, saying his comments reflect " a dogmatic belief in free enterprise and limited government," which to me, sounds like a compliment.
The fact is, the richest person in a Third World country would trade that spot for the lowest rung on the American ladder. But I'll go further and say the poor in the US - when viewed by the rest of the world - aren't poor at all. The poverty level for us looks like something to shoot for.
According to the most recent data I found, there's roughly 250 million TV's in America. That's over two per household, not including lap tops, dvd players and homemade puppet diorama's.
And if you hate anecdotal evidence, you're going to hate what I say next: I watch Cops, and every "poor" household they bust into has shag carpeting, an overabundance of prescription drugs and a cluttered entertainment center. This to me, is not poverty: it's a slice of heaven.
Fact is, there are too many countries to mention where citizens have a yearly income measured in hundreds of dollars. While our poor can still buy music, beer and Nikes, one purchase at the Footlocker cripples Liberia for a week.
Anyway, for more information on this topic, watch Cops.
At a forum with Democratic opponent Jack Conway in Kentucky, Paul said America's poor, are "enormously better off than the rest of the world."
He cited an old Russian propaganda film that showed poor Yanks with color TVs. The story goes that while this flick was meant to demonize capitalism, it backfired when the Russkies saw all those TVs. Rand added that "It doesn't mean we can't do better. But we have to...be proud of ...capitalism."
Some Dems are knocking Rand, saying his comments reflect " a dogmatic belief in free enterprise and limited government," which to me, sounds like a compliment.
The fact is, the richest person in a Third World country would trade that spot for the lowest rung on the American ladder. But I'll go further and say the poor in the US - when viewed by the rest of the world - aren't poor at all. The poverty level for us looks like something to shoot for.
According to the most recent data I found, there's roughly 250 million TV's in America. That's over two per household, not including lap tops, dvd players and homemade puppet diorama's.
And if you hate anecdotal evidence, you're going to hate what I say next: I watch Cops, and every "poor" household they bust into has shag carpeting, an overabundance of prescription drugs and a cluttered entertainment center. This to me, is not poverty: it's a slice of heaven.
Fact is, there are too many countries to mention where citizens have a yearly income measured in hundreds of dollars. While our poor can still buy music, beer and Nikes, one purchase at the Footlocker cripples Liberia for a week.
Anyway, for more information on this topic, watch Cops.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
The wrong guy got Fired
Compare C.V.'s
General McChrystal Biography
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/
Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan
United States Army
SOURCE OF COMMISSIONED SERVICE: USMA EDUCATIONAL DEGREES
United States Military Academy - BS - No Major
United States Naval War College - MA - National Security and Strategic Studies
Salve Regina University - MS - International Relations
MILITARY SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Courses
United States Naval Command and Staff College
Senior Service College Fellowship Harvard University
FOREIGN LANGUAGES:
Spanish
PROMOTIONS DATE OF APPOINTMENT:
2LT 2 Jun 76
1LT 2 Jun 78
CPT 1 Aug 80
MAJ 1 Jul 87
LTC 1 Sep 92
COL 1 Sep 96
BG 1 Jan 01
MG 1 May 04
LTG 16 Feb 06
GEN 11 Jun 09
FROM TO ASSIGNMENT:
Nov 76 Feb 78 Weapons Platoon Leader, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Feb 78 Jul 78 Rifle Platoon Leader, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Jul 78 Nov 78 Executive Officer, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Nov 78 Apr 79 Student, Special Forces Officer Course, Special Forces School, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Apr 79 Jun 80 Commander, Detachment A, A Company, 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Jun 80 Feb 81 Student, Infantry Officer Advanced Course, United States Army Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia
Feb 81 Mar 82 S2/S3 (Intelligence/Operations), United Nations Command Support Group Joint Security Area, Korea
Mar 82 Nov 82 Training Officer, Directorate of Plans and Training, A Company, Headquarters Command, Fort Stewart, Georgia
Nov 82 Sep 84 Commander, A Company, 3d Battalion, 19th Infantry, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart , Georgia
Sep 84 Sep 85 S3 (Operations), 3d Battalion, 19th Infantry, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart, Georgia
Sep 85 Jan 86 Liaison Officer, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Jan 86 May 87 Commander, A Company, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
May 87 Apr 88 Liaison Officer, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Apr 88 Jun 89 S3 (Operations), 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Jun 89 Jun 90 Student, Command and Staff Course, United States Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island
Jun 90 Apr 93 Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia
Apr 93 Nov 94 Commander, 2d Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Nov 94 Jun 96 Commander, 2d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Lewis , Washington
Jun 96 Jun 97 Senior Service College Fellowship, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University , Cambridge , Massachusetts
Jun 97 Aug 99 Commander, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Aug 99 Jun 00 Military Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, New York
Jun 00 Jun 01 Assistant Division Commander (Operations), 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Kuwait, Camp Doha, Kuwait
Jun 01 Jul 02 Chief of Staff, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING
FREEDOM, Afghanistan
Jul 02 Sep 03 Vice Director for Operations, J3, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC
Sep 03 Feb 06 Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Feb 06 Jun 08 Commander, Joint Special Operations Command/Commander, Joint Special Operations Command Forward, United States Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Aug 08 Jun 09 Director, The Joint Staff, Washington , DC
Jun 09 Present Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan , OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan
SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS:
S2/S3 (Intelligence/Operations), United Nations Command Support Group Joint Security Area , Korea (Feb 81-Mar 82, Captain)
Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia Jun 90-Apr 93 Major/Lieutenant Colonel)
Chief of Staff, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 01-Jul 02, Brigadier General)
Vice Director for Operations, J3, The Joint Staff, Washington , DC (Jul 02-Sep 03, Brigadier General)
Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg , North Carolina (Sep 03-Feb 06, Brigadier General/Major General)
Commander, Joint Special Operations Command/Commander, Joint Special Operations
Command Forward, United States Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina (Feb 06-Jun 08, Major General/Lieutenant General)
Director, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC (Aug 08-Jun 09, Lieutenant General)
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 09-Present, General)
SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS ASSIGNMENTS DATE GRADE
Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia (Jun 90-Mar 91, Major)
Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Kuwait, Camp Doha, Kuwait (Apr 01-Jun 01, Brigadier General)
Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (May 02-Jul 02, Brigadier General)
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan , OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 09- Present, General)
US DECORATIONS AND BADGES:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Bronze Star Medal
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Army Commendation Medal
Army Achievement Medal
Expert Infantryman Badge
Master Parachutist Badge
Ranger Tab
Special Forces Tab
Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge
_________________________________________________________________
Obama Biography:
Birthplace: Location remains questionable. Proof of United States Citizenship hasn't been provided.
Education: Columbia University , Harvard Law School . Records never produced, attendance remains questionable.
Military Career: None
Business Career: None
Political Career: Community organizer, Chicago, 1983-86; civil rights attorney, Chicago, 1991-96;
University of Chicago, lecturer, early 1990s-2004; Illinois State Senator, 1996-2005; U.S. Senator, 2005-2008; President 2008-.
____________________________________________________________________
General McChrystal Biography
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/
Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan
United States Army
SOURCE OF COMMISSIONED SERVICE: USMA EDUCATIONAL DEGREES
United States Military Academy - BS - No Major
United States Naval War College - MA - National Security and Strategic Studies
Salve Regina University - MS - International Relations
MILITARY SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced Courses
United States Naval Command and Staff College
Senior Service College Fellowship Harvard University
FOREIGN LANGUAGES:
Spanish
PROMOTIONS DATE OF APPOINTMENT:
2LT 2 Jun 76
1LT 2 Jun 78
CPT 1 Aug 80
MAJ 1 Jul 87
LTC 1 Sep 92
COL 1 Sep 96
BG 1 Jan 01
MG 1 May 04
LTG 16 Feb 06
GEN 11 Jun 09
FROM TO ASSIGNMENT:
Nov 76 Feb 78 Weapons Platoon Leader, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Feb 78 Jul 78 Rifle Platoon Leader, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Jul 78 Nov 78 Executive Officer, C Company, 1st Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Nov 78 Apr 79 Student, Special Forces Officer Course, Special Forces School, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Apr 79 Jun 80 Commander, Detachment A, A Company, 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Jun 80 Feb 81 Student, Infantry Officer Advanced Course, United States Army Infantry School, Fort Benning, Georgia
Feb 81 Mar 82 S2/S3 (Intelligence/Operations), United Nations Command Support Group Joint Security Area, Korea
Mar 82 Nov 82 Training Officer, Directorate of Plans and Training, A Company, Headquarters Command, Fort Stewart, Georgia
Nov 82 Sep 84 Commander, A Company, 3d Battalion, 19th Infantry, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart , Georgia
Sep 84 Sep 85 S3 (Operations), 3d Battalion, 19th Infantry, 24th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Stewart, Georgia
Sep 85 Jan 86 Liaison Officer, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Jan 86 May 87 Commander, A Company, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
May 87 Apr 88 Liaison Officer, 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Apr 88 Jun 89 S3 (Operations), 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Jun 89 Jun 90 Student, Command and Staff Course, United States Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island
Jun 90 Apr 93 Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia
Apr 93 Nov 94 Commander, 2d Battalion, 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg , North Carolina
Nov 94 Jun 96 Commander, 2d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Lewis , Washington
Jun 96 Jun 97 Senior Service College Fellowship, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University , Cambridge , Massachusetts
Jun 97 Aug 99 Commander, 75th Ranger Regiment, Fort Benning, Georgia
Aug 99 Jun 00 Military Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, New York
Jun 00 Jun 01 Assistant Division Commander (Operations), 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Kuwait, Camp Doha, Kuwait
Jun 01 Jul 02 Chief of Staff, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING
FREEDOM, Afghanistan
Jul 02 Sep 03 Vice Director for Operations, J3, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC
Sep 03 Feb 06 Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Feb 06 Jun 08 Commander, Joint Special Operations Command/Commander, Joint Special Operations Command Forward, United States Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina
Aug 08 Jun 09 Director, The Joint Staff, Washington , DC
Jun 09 Present Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan , OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan
SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS:
S2/S3 (Intelligence/Operations), United Nations Command Support Group Joint Security Area , Korea (Feb 81-Mar 82, Captain)
Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina and OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia Jun 90-Apr 93 Major/Lieutenant Colonel)
Chief of Staff, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Fort Bragg, North Carolina to include duty as Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 01-Jul 02, Brigadier General)
Vice Director for Operations, J3, The Joint Staff, Washington , DC (Jul 02-Sep 03, Brigadier General)
Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg , North Carolina (Sep 03-Feb 06, Brigadier General/Major General)
Commander, Joint Special Operations Command/Commander, Joint Special Operations
Command Forward, United States Special Operations Command, Fort Bragg, North Carolina (Feb 06-Jun 08, Major General/Lieutenant General)
Director, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC (Aug 08-Jun 09, Lieutenant General)
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 09-Present, General)
SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS ASSIGNMENTS DATE GRADE
Army Special Operations Action Officer, J3, Joint Special Operations Command, OPERATIONS DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia (Jun 90-Mar 91, Major)
Commander, Combined Joint Task Force Kuwait, Camp Doha, Kuwait (Apr 01-Jun 01, Brigadier General)
Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force180, OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (May 02-Jul 02, Brigadier General)
Commander, International Security Assistance Force/Commander, United States Forces Afghanistan , OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, Afghanistan (Jun 09- Present, General)
US DECORATIONS AND BADGES:
Defense Distinguished Service Medal
Defense Superior Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
Legion of Merit (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Bronze Star Medal
Defense Meritorious Service Medal
Meritorious Service Medal (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
Army Commendation Medal
Army Achievement Medal
Expert Infantryman Badge
Master Parachutist Badge
Ranger Tab
Special Forces Tab
Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge
_________________________________________________________________
Obama Biography:
Birthplace: Location remains questionable. Proof of United States Citizenship hasn't been provided.
Education: Columbia University , Harvard Law School . Records never produced, attendance remains questionable.
Military Career: None
Business Career: None
Political Career: Community organizer, Chicago, 1983-86; civil rights attorney, Chicago, 1991-96;
University of Chicago, lecturer, early 1990s-2004; Illinois State Senator, 1996-2005; U.S. Senator, 2005-2008; President 2008-.
____________________________________________________________________
Friday, July 02, 2010
Crusing the Internet
Amazing the headlines you read. Let's see .....
Unemployment claims are up.
The so-called "recovery" is fizzling
US debt at a record percentage of GDP .. and growing
Private business aren't hiring ... and don't plan to
Government employment growing across the board
Iran thumbing its nose at further sanctions .. continue work on the bomb
Dependency on government growing at highest rate since Jimmy Carter
The United Nations is calling for the dollar to be replaced as the global reserve currency
Oil leak in Gulf continues with no real end in sight
Taliban cooling their heels and waiting for our July 2011 pull out date
Tax increases across the board in the US
The Value Added Tax is on the way!
Home sales are down by 30%
Six months to go before we are hit with the largest tax hike in history
Hugo Chavez just seized 11 oil rigs owned by a US company
Mexican drug gang fight at Arizona border kills 21
So ... how's that Hopey-Changy thing working out for you?
Unemployment claims are up.
The so-called "recovery" is fizzling
US debt at a record percentage of GDP .. and growing
Private business aren't hiring ... and don't plan to
Government employment growing across the board
Iran thumbing its nose at further sanctions .. continue work on the bomb
Dependency on government growing at highest rate since Jimmy Carter
The United Nations is calling for the dollar to be replaced as the global reserve currency
Oil leak in Gulf continues with no real end in sight
Taliban cooling their heels and waiting for our July 2011 pull out date
Tax increases across the board in the US
The Value Added Tax is on the way!
Home sales are down by 30%
Six months to go before we are hit with the largest tax hike in history
Hugo Chavez just seized 11 oil rigs owned by a US company
Mexican drug gang fight at Arizona border kills 21
So ... how's that Hopey-Changy thing working out for you?
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
New Scam--For the old Bad Boys--Look out.
Older men scam
Women often receive warnings about protecting themselves at the mall and in
dark parking lots, etc. This is the first warning I have seen for men. I
wanted to pass it on in case you haven't heard about it.
A 'heads up' for those men who may be regular customers at Lowe's, Home
Depot, Costco, or even Wal-Mart. This one caught me totally by surprise.
Over the last month I became a victim of a clever scam while out shopping.
Simply going out to get supplies has turned out to be quite traumatic. Don't
be naive enough to think it couldn't happen to you or your friends.
Here's how the scam works:
Two nice-looking, college-aged girls will come over to your car or truck as
you are packing your purchases into your vehicle. They both start wiping
your windshield with a rag and Windex, with their breasts almost falling out
of their skimpy T-shirts. (It's impossible not to look).
When you thank them and offer them a tip, they say 'No' but instead ask for
a ride to McDonald's.
You agree and they climb into the vehicle. On the way, they start
undressing. Then one of them starts crawling all over you, while the other
one steals your wallet.
I had my wallet stolen Mar. 4th, 9th, 10th, twice on the 15th, 17th, 20th,
24th, & 29th. Also Apr. 1st & 4th, twice on the 8th, 16th, 23rd, 26th &
27th, and very likely again this upcoming weekend.
So tell your friends to be careful. What a horrible way to take advantage of
us older men. Warn your friends to be vigilant.
Wal-Mart has wallets on sale for $2.99 each. I found even cheaper ones for
$.99 at the dollar store and bought them out in three of their stores.
Also, you never get to eat at McDonald's. I've already lost 11 pounds just
running back and forth from Lowe's, to Home Depot, to Costco, Etc.
So please, send this on to all the older men that you know and warn them to
be on the lookout for this scam. (The best times are just before lunch and
around 4:30 in the afternoon.)
Women often receive warnings about protecting themselves at the mall and in
dark parking lots, etc. This is the first warning I have seen for men. I
wanted to pass it on in case you haven't heard about it.
A 'heads up' for those men who may be regular customers at Lowe's, Home
Depot, Costco, or even Wal-Mart. This one caught me totally by surprise.
Over the last month I became a victim of a clever scam while out shopping.
Simply going out to get supplies has turned out to be quite traumatic. Don't
be naive enough to think it couldn't happen to you or your friends.
Here's how the scam works:
Two nice-looking, college-aged girls will come over to your car or truck as
you are packing your purchases into your vehicle. They both start wiping
your windshield with a rag and Windex, with their breasts almost falling out
of their skimpy T-shirts. (It's impossible not to look).
When you thank them and offer them a tip, they say 'No' but instead ask for
a ride to McDonald's.
You agree and they climb into the vehicle. On the way, they start
undressing. Then one of them starts crawling all over you, while the other
one steals your wallet.
I had my wallet stolen Mar. 4th, 9th, 10th, twice on the 15th, 17th, 20th,
24th, & 29th. Also Apr. 1st & 4th, twice on the 8th, 16th, 23rd, 26th &
27th, and very likely again this upcoming weekend.
So tell your friends to be careful. What a horrible way to take advantage of
us older men. Warn your friends to be vigilant.
Wal-Mart has wallets on sale for $2.99 each. I found even cheaper ones for
$.99 at the dollar store and bought them out in three of their stores.
Also, you never get to eat at McDonald's. I've already lost 11 pounds just
running back and forth from Lowe's, to Home Depot, to Costco, Etc.
So please, send this on to all the older men that you know and warn them to
be on the lookout for this scam. (The best times are just before lunch and
around 4:30 in the afternoon.)
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
The Obama Oval Office Speech
Did you watch the Community Organizer last night? If you are like me, it pains me to even see this man in action, addressing the people from the Oval Office. Never did I imagine that this man would be such a danger to this nation .. or at least a danger to the few Americans who still value freedom and liberty, free enterprise and the idea of personal excellence. What incentive does any young producer have to succeed and work-hard, when all Barack Obama and his liberal cadre in Washington want to do is take your earnings for redistribution ... for redistribution to people who have done absolutely not one thing to actually earn it? (Well, aside from voting for Obama, that is.)
How is the gimme mentality going to foster a new wave of growth and entrepreneurship among small business owners and innovators? The answer is that it is not, and that is exactly the point. Despite what the teleprompter may tell you, Barack Obama doesn't give a damn about your small business or your success. This man cares about nothing but government and retaining power. I would also say that he doesn't give a damn about your wealth, but that would be incorrect - he DOES care about your wealth so long as you earn enough to hand it over to the government and let the government decide where it should be spent. And that is exactly what is happening to BP ..
The Obama administration has made it official: If he has his way BP will no longer be responsible for the claims process for those affected by the oil spill. The Obama White House determined that "the best way to prevail on BP is to take the claims process away from BP." That's complete nonsense. Here's what The Community Organizer really meant to say last night:
"The best way to make sure that the government gets the credit for helping those who are affected by this tragic accident, rather than a private sector company getting the credit, is for us to seize control of the claims process."
Now why exactly are they taking this process away from BP? Has BP said that it would not honor the claims and pay any economic costs of the oil spill? No. Has BP been sluggish in paying claims submitted thus far? No. In fact, about half of the 42,000 claims submitted thus far have been worked through by a team of more than 600 claims personnel. Would you call that inefficient? If you want inefficient let's go back to the days of the Cash for Clunkers program. Do you remember dealers across the country screaming about how hard it was to get their money from Obama's federal government? Dealers were promised that they would be paid within 10 days. Yeah, right. Define "day." Needless to say, the government failed miserably to live up to its commitment. For some, it took months to receive their checks in the mail. Some businesses found themselves on the verge of having to shut down when the checks finally arrived. Some savvy dealers saw the writing on the wall and quit the program altogether. Remember?
Nobody in their right mind (which excludes most ObamaZombies) would suggest that the government can do a better job of processing and paying these claims than the private sector. So the question remains: Why is the Obama administration doing this? Well .. I've already told you. Read the highlighted paragraph above. Barack Obama wants to make sure that when it is all said and done, the "savior" in this crisis is government, not BP. Even the residents of Louisiana are now saying that George Bush did a better job of responding to Katrina than Obama is responding to the oil spill. For the grand lover of all that is government, this is completely unacceptable. Barack Obama has a centrally-planned economy to build, and the narrative of a corporation acting responsibility does not fit in to the vision of an evil and malicious corporate America that he has been trying to build. In other words, Obama must step in to prevent the evil corporate giant BP from accomplishing the task. Government - the ObamaGovernment - must be the savior here. Obama isn't doing so well in the polls right now. Maybe taking down the evil BP giant can help him with some of the more ignorant voters out there.
Make no mistake - this step has nothing to do with caring about oil spill victims or making sure that BP pays up. It has everything to do with making government look like the hero. He will do everything to convince you that pelicans would be forever covered in oil and we would be eating blackened shrimp for the rest of our lives, if it hadn't been for Barack Obama, the Democrats and their imperial federal government. Former Clintonista Paul Begala is writing today that Obama is showing his personal commitment. Begala is right .. but commitment to what? To the elevation of government in every thread of American life, that's what.
Seething with anger, Obama is hoping that you will put aside all rational and logical thinking skills and actually believe that government - an entity not in the oil business -- will be able to handle this crisis more efficiently than BP. Maybe this one will be the exception! But if I were you, I wouldn't bet whatever is left of your 401(k). In the dictionary of common sense, waste, fraud and abuse are synonyms for government. Here are just a few facts to noodle through from the Heritage Foundation:
The federal government made at least $72 billion in improper payments in 2008. Are you grasping that figure? Here we have PrezBO demanding what? About $20 billion from BP so that the government can be in charge of handling claims, and this very same government squandered $72 billion in improper payments in 2008? Someone ask BP how much they wasted in improper payments that year.
Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them -- costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually -- fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve. Hopefully that is no surprise to you. These programs may have failed to show a positive impact on the people government was intending to help ... but they damn sure increased the power of government. So ... mission accomplished.
A GAO audit classified nearly half of all purchases on government credit cards as improper, fraudulent, or embezzled. If you ran your household or your business that way you would be bankrupt in a heartbeat. Only government can get away with that crap - and its because you LET government get away with it by continuing to elect the same power-hungry imbeciles who got us into this situation in the first place.
Federal agencies are delinquent on nearly 20 percent of employee travel charge cards, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Oh yeah ... they're going to get these oil spill claims paid quickly and accurately, aren't they?
Those are just generalities about the spending habits of our federal government. But how about a recent "crisis" example where the government stepped in to allocate claims. Let's turn to Hurricane Katrina ...
Fraud related to Hurricane Katrina spending is estimated to top $2 billion. What the hell. Who really cares? Just add it to the debt, right?
Auditors discovered that 900,000 of the 2.5 million recipients of emergency Katrina assistance provided false names, addresses, or Social Security numbers or submitted multiple applications. We're talking over one-third here. And you think that by some magic the doling out of BP's money is going to go any more smoothly?
Lawmakers diverted $13 million from Hurricane Katrina relief spending to build a museum celebrating the Army Corps of Engineers -- the agency partially responsible for the failed levees that flooded New Orleans. What guarantee do we have that government won't similarly divert BP funds to some politically-favored projects?
These are just a few examples of government inefficiency. We could go back through history and I guarantee you that you cannot find one government-run program that a rational person could consider efficient. But as I've already said, that is not really the point here, is it?
Obama is living a dream right now . Another wonderful crisis he can exploit to further increase the power of our Imperial Federal Government. Where does this end? Maybe the new paradigm will be that when the cost of some disaster exceeds a certain set sum, the responsible parties and/or the insurance companies with claims to pay will be required to turn that money over to some federal agency ... The Federal Disaster Payment Authority (or something like that) ... which will in turn make the payments to the aggrieved parties. Nice. Let's let politics rather than good business practices decide where the money is going to go.
How is the gimme mentality going to foster a new wave of growth and entrepreneurship among small business owners and innovators? The answer is that it is not, and that is exactly the point. Despite what the teleprompter may tell you, Barack Obama doesn't give a damn about your small business or your success. This man cares about nothing but government and retaining power. I would also say that he doesn't give a damn about your wealth, but that would be incorrect - he DOES care about your wealth so long as you earn enough to hand it over to the government and let the government decide where it should be spent. And that is exactly what is happening to BP ..
The Obama administration has made it official: If he has his way BP will no longer be responsible for the claims process for those affected by the oil spill. The Obama White House determined that "the best way to prevail on BP is to take the claims process away from BP." That's complete nonsense. Here's what The Community Organizer really meant to say last night:
"The best way to make sure that the government gets the credit for helping those who are affected by this tragic accident, rather than a private sector company getting the credit, is for us to seize control of the claims process."
Now why exactly are they taking this process away from BP? Has BP said that it would not honor the claims and pay any economic costs of the oil spill? No. Has BP been sluggish in paying claims submitted thus far? No. In fact, about half of the 42,000 claims submitted thus far have been worked through by a team of more than 600 claims personnel. Would you call that inefficient? If you want inefficient let's go back to the days of the Cash for Clunkers program. Do you remember dealers across the country screaming about how hard it was to get their money from Obama's federal government? Dealers were promised that they would be paid within 10 days. Yeah, right. Define "day." Needless to say, the government failed miserably to live up to its commitment. For some, it took months to receive their checks in the mail. Some businesses found themselves on the verge of having to shut down when the checks finally arrived. Some savvy dealers saw the writing on the wall and quit the program altogether. Remember?
Nobody in their right mind (which excludes most ObamaZombies) would suggest that the government can do a better job of processing and paying these claims than the private sector. So the question remains: Why is the Obama administration doing this? Well .. I've already told you. Read the highlighted paragraph above. Barack Obama wants to make sure that when it is all said and done, the "savior" in this crisis is government, not BP. Even the residents of Louisiana are now saying that George Bush did a better job of responding to Katrina than Obama is responding to the oil spill. For the grand lover of all that is government, this is completely unacceptable. Barack Obama has a centrally-planned economy to build, and the narrative of a corporation acting responsibility does not fit in to the vision of an evil and malicious corporate America that he has been trying to build. In other words, Obama must step in to prevent the evil corporate giant BP from accomplishing the task. Government - the ObamaGovernment - must be the savior here. Obama isn't doing so well in the polls right now. Maybe taking down the evil BP giant can help him with some of the more ignorant voters out there.
Make no mistake - this step has nothing to do with caring about oil spill victims or making sure that BP pays up. It has everything to do with making government look like the hero. He will do everything to convince you that pelicans would be forever covered in oil and we would be eating blackened shrimp for the rest of our lives, if it hadn't been for Barack Obama, the Democrats and their imperial federal government. Former Clintonista Paul Begala is writing today that Obama is showing his personal commitment. Begala is right .. but commitment to what? To the elevation of government in every thread of American life, that's what.
Seething with anger, Obama is hoping that you will put aside all rational and logical thinking skills and actually believe that government - an entity not in the oil business -- will be able to handle this crisis more efficiently than BP. Maybe this one will be the exception! But if I were you, I wouldn't bet whatever is left of your 401(k). In the dictionary of common sense, waste, fraud and abuse are synonyms for government. Here are just a few facts to noodle through from the Heritage Foundation:
The federal government made at least $72 billion in improper payments in 2008. Are you grasping that figure? Here we have PrezBO demanding what? About $20 billion from BP so that the government can be in charge of handling claims, and this very same government squandered $72 billion in improper payments in 2008? Someone ask BP how much they wasted in improper payments that year.
Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them -- costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually -- fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve. Hopefully that is no surprise to you. These programs may have failed to show a positive impact on the people government was intending to help ... but they damn sure increased the power of government. So ... mission accomplished.
A GAO audit classified nearly half of all purchases on government credit cards as improper, fraudulent, or embezzled. If you ran your household or your business that way you would be bankrupt in a heartbeat. Only government can get away with that crap - and its because you LET government get away with it by continuing to elect the same power-hungry imbeciles who got us into this situation in the first place.
Federal agencies are delinquent on nearly 20 percent of employee travel charge cards, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Oh yeah ... they're going to get these oil spill claims paid quickly and accurately, aren't they?
Those are just generalities about the spending habits of our federal government. But how about a recent "crisis" example where the government stepped in to allocate claims. Let's turn to Hurricane Katrina ...
Fraud related to Hurricane Katrina spending is estimated to top $2 billion. What the hell. Who really cares? Just add it to the debt, right?
Auditors discovered that 900,000 of the 2.5 million recipients of emergency Katrina assistance provided false names, addresses, or Social Security numbers or submitted multiple applications. We're talking over one-third here. And you think that by some magic the doling out of BP's money is going to go any more smoothly?
Lawmakers diverted $13 million from Hurricane Katrina relief spending to build a museum celebrating the Army Corps of Engineers -- the agency partially responsible for the failed levees that flooded New Orleans. What guarantee do we have that government won't similarly divert BP funds to some politically-favored projects?
These are just a few examples of government inefficiency. We could go back through history and I guarantee you that you cannot find one government-run program that a rational person could consider efficient. But as I've already said, that is not really the point here, is it?
Obama is living a dream right now . Another wonderful crisis he can exploit to further increase the power of our Imperial Federal Government. Where does this end? Maybe the new paradigm will be that when the cost of some disaster exceeds a certain set sum, the responsible parties and/or the insurance companies with claims to pay will be required to turn that money over to some federal agency ... The Federal Disaster Payment Authority (or something like that) ... which will in turn make the payments to the aggrieved parties. Nice. Let's let politics rather than good business practices decide where the money is going to go.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Straight Talk---How refreshing
So President Bush came out of hibernation, to attend something called the Economic Club, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. There he defended his use of waterboarding, and said he'd do it again in a heartbeat.
"Yeah, we water-boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Bush said of the terrorist behind 9/11. "I'd do it again to save lives."
Now, whether you agree with him or not, and whether you hate his guts or not - you gotta like that. No heavy lifting in that vocab: simple, straightforward, and honest. I miss that.
I mean, would you ever hear Obama say, "Yeah, we lied about the cost of health care, but I'd do it again, because I think it's worth it."
Or, "Yeah, I trashed the immigration bill in Arizona without reading it, but so what - I think it sucks. You should too."
How about: "Sure, I threw Reverend Wright under the bus. Wouldn't you?"
Or, "Okay, I smoke. So what. I'm President, you're a low-level media hack with a potbelly and a wife who not-so-secretly wishes she was banging me. So there. You gotta light?"
See, I'd like to hear that. But I won't. Instead, in the White House, we get Sir Paul McCartney - the least talented member of the Monkees - cracking wise about a President who saved millions of lives in Africa.
Here's his joke:
"After the last eight years, it's great to have a President who knows what a library is."
Haha. Now if you remember, it was Sir Paul who said a fish's life is the same as a human's. Thankfully for Africa, Bush felt differently.
But Sir Paul feels Obama is doing a great job, because he's well liked. He's right: people who were scared of us once, aren't so scared of us anymore. We traded in our stick for a back scratcher.
But look: I'd rather be hated in a safer world, than loved in a dangerous one. Perhaps Obama should call Bush for some advice, before he makes Carter look like Reagan by comparison.
"Yeah, we water-boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Bush said of the terrorist behind 9/11. "I'd do it again to save lives."
Now, whether you agree with him or not, and whether you hate his guts or not - you gotta like that. No heavy lifting in that vocab: simple, straightforward, and honest. I miss that.
I mean, would you ever hear Obama say, "Yeah, we lied about the cost of health care, but I'd do it again, because I think it's worth it."
Or, "Yeah, I trashed the immigration bill in Arizona without reading it, but so what - I think it sucks. You should too."
How about: "Sure, I threw Reverend Wright under the bus. Wouldn't you?"
Or, "Okay, I smoke. So what. I'm President, you're a low-level media hack with a potbelly and a wife who not-so-secretly wishes she was banging me. So there. You gotta light?"
See, I'd like to hear that. But I won't. Instead, in the White House, we get Sir Paul McCartney - the least talented member of the Monkees - cracking wise about a President who saved millions of lives in Africa.
Here's his joke:
"After the last eight years, it's great to have a President who knows what a library is."
Haha. Now if you remember, it was Sir Paul who said a fish's life is the same as a human's. Thankfully for Africa, Bush felt differently.
But Sir Paul feels Obama is doing a great job, because he's well liked. He's right: people who were scared of us once, aren't so scared of us anymore. We traded in our stick for a back scratcher.
But look: I'd rather be hated in a safer world, than loved in a dangerous one. Perhaps Obama should call Bush for some advice, before he makes Carter look like Reagan by comparison.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Fun Friday Fact
Yesterday while we were distracted by tar balls, the saga of Al and Tipper and this Joran van der Sloot prepuce ... our federal debt surpassed $13 trillion. This is the first time in history that our country has sunk this much into the red. Say what you will about the spending of previous administrations, but there is no doubt that Barack Obama and the Democrats running the clown show in Congress are on a high-speed track to America's financial destruction.
Since the inept Community Organizer has taken the reins in Washington, our government has spent an average of $5 billion a day. That is almost three times as much as the daily average under George W. Bush. This means that so far under Obama's presidency, our national debt has risen $2.4 trillion.
Just yesterday PrezBo had some very harsh words for the GOP .. he criticized them for sitting on the sidelines and not offering any solutions. Perhaps Obama should direct some of that anger towards his fellow Democrats in Congress who have refused to vote on a budget this year. Other than defending our nation, is there a more primary function of government than setting a basic budget for operations? While Obama has managed to appoint a debt commission, what real action do you see the Democrats trying to take in tackling our debt crisis? The answer is that you don't. That's because this is a crisis that isn't going to win them votes. It isn't going to win them re-election or union support or local memorials in their honor. It is going to be an issue that takes real guts - it is going to take politicians who are not there because they seek power, but because they want to get this country back on track. Where can you find such selfless people nowadays? Sure ain't the people currently running the show.
Since the inept Community Organizer has taken the reins in Washington, our government has spent an average of $5 billion a day. That is almost three times as much as the daily average under George W. Bush. This means that so far under Obama's presidency, our national debt has risen $2.4 trillion.
Just yesterday PrezBo had some very harsh words for the GOP .. he criticized them for sitting on the sidelines and not offering any solutions. Perhaps Obama should direct some of that anger towards his fellow Democrats in Congress who have refused to vote on a budget this year. Other than defending our nation, is there a more primary function of government than setting a basic budget for operations? While Obama has managed to appoint a debt commission, what real action do you see the Democrats trying to take in tackling our debt crisis? The answer is that you don't. That's because this is a crisis that isn't going to win them votes. It isn't going to win them re-election or union support or local memorials in their honor. It is going to be an issue that takes real guts - it is going to take politicians who are not there because they seek power, but because they want to get this country back on track. Where can you find such selfless people nowadays? Sure ain't the people currently running the show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)