Sunday, March 29, 2009

Braindead Botox Ignoramous

I feel like I have been asking this question a lot more lately. But honestly .. read this quote from Nancy Pelosi. It is about health-care legislation that will include an option for a government-run program that would compete with private insurers.

"This is not only about the health of individuals in our country, which will be justification enough ... It's about the competitiveness of our businesses to make them globally competitive because they are competing with companies and countries where the federal government -- their governments -- pay for health care. They don't have to bear those health care costs."

Hey .. Nancy .. newsflash. It is not the government that will be paying for this healthcare. The government does not generate an income to pay for healthcare. It seizes money from its taxpayers. Money that was earned by the taxpayers. So if the taxpayers have earned the money, and the government seizes it to pay for Democrat dreams and schemes like healthcare .. then the taxpayers are really the ones "bearing those healthcare costs" now aren't then?

Thursday, March 26, 2009

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED--well---not really..

So here's good news on the Global War on Terror – it's officially over.


Well, at least the use of that phrase is.

The Pentagon has "codified" it, which has nothing to do with cod, but still smells fishy. According to the Washington Post, the phrase is being put out to pasture, to be replaced by something called an "Overseas Contigency Operation,." Now, I have no idea what that means, but then again I'm still wearing shoes with Velcro snaps.


But look, it's not difficult to see where this new language is coming from: it's pure civil servant speak designed to take the meaning out of what clearly is the most important battle in our lifetimes. The sad fact is, ever since the rise of deconstructionist thinking in academia, every Ivy League graduate knows that the concept of "good vs. evil" is infantile, and the concept of terror is "relative." There is no difference between our war, and their war – even though we don't fly planes into buildings, or wear vests packed with things that look like roman candles (but aren't). We're just as bad as terrorists, because we're big and powerful – even if we don't behead people who disagree with us.


But look, I don't care about words. What I do care about is commitment. Whether it's a "war" or a "contingency operation," it's never going to be over. It's a battle fought each and every day by brave men and women all over the world. And a change in language is not going to make their work any easier.


But at least there will be a new logo for the coffee mugs.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Hedge Funds win again

The Treasury acknowledges that private investors will be subsidized to take on the ownership of what it’s calling “legacy loans” and “legacy securities.”
(If these horrific securities are legacy loans, then the funeral industry should reclassify corpses as “legacy bodies.")
The Treasury cites as an example a loan valued by a bank at $100 that is sold for $84. In that instance, the private investor and the government would each put in $6, and the investor would borrow the other $72 from the government. If you’re keeping score at home, it means the private investor would put in 7 percent of the cash but would receive a much higher percentage of the profits. However at the end of the day if it doesn't work the taxpayer eats 83% of the losses.

Are you aware of what the word "Toxic" means?

Without the teleprompter he is lost.

Just a question. You do know that Obama wrote a letter to Jacques Chirac recently. In that letter Obama wrote "I am certain that we will be able to work together, in the coming four years, in a spirit of peace and friendship to build a safer world."

The "coming four years?" Well, it seems that there's a small problem here. Jacques Chirac is not the president of France. That honor goes to Nicolas Sarkozy.

Now if, say, Sarah Palin had done this the press would be full of outrage. Hmmmm. Oh well, read this for yourself.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Obamonmics

You may remember that last month Obama unveiled his budget for 2010. And guess what it included? More government! He proposed spending $3.6 trillion, which is more than 25% of our GDP. And that number will only grow so long as Obama is in the White House.

It seems that the Congressional Budget Office has some news for Obama .. his budget would commit Washington to unsustainable deficits and increase borrowing by over $9 trillion over the next decade. That is more than four times the deficits of George Bush.

It gets worse, folks. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that "Obama's policies would cause government spending to swell above historic levels even after the costly programs to alleviate the recession and shore up the financial system have ended. The result, the CBO said, was that by 2019 the US national debt would be about 82 per cent of GDP - about double where it is today."

How about that? You voted for this guy because he looked cool and enjoys basketball. You voted for him because he appeared on all of your favorite magazine covers and was praised by your favorite TV and movie stars. And, of course, you voted for him because of that magical word "change!" Working out pretty well, isn't it?

Obama, of course, is saying that the CBO has it all wrong. HE, based on his immense government and management experience - which he has been displaying so brilliantly - says that he will cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. The ONLY way that will happen is if the House and Senate are turned over to a new breed of Republican and a stop is put to this idiocy.

FYI .. the Heritage Foundation has an excellent analysis of Obama's budget.

Friday, March 20, 2009

The Flying Monkey Show

Yesterday's vote in the House was completely expected. Overwhelmingly, your representatives in Washington voted huge taxes on bonuses for AIG employees. Nancy Pelosi said, "We want our money back and we want our money back now for the taxpayers." Funny .. after recently passing a bill with more than 8,000 earmarks worth over $400 billion, the hollow-eyed hippy from Haight-Ashbury and her flying monkeys are suddenly worried about the taxpayers.

First point. It is not "their" money. The money, whether you like it or not, belongs to the people to whom they were paid. Those bonuses were paid pursuant to a valid contract and are not the rightful and legal property of the payees. Let's us also remember that the amount paid in those bonuses was less than one-tenth of one percent of the bailout money received by AIG. Remember, though ... politicians believe that ever penny you earn actually belongs to the government. In the official language of Washington any money from your paycheck that these political hacks allow you to keep is a "tax expenditure." You earned it ... but if you're allowed to keep it they treat it as a government expenditure. To the Democrat mind, and in the mind of all too many Republicans, all wealth is owned by government. Produced by the people, but owned by government.

Second point. This is absolutely unconstitutional. Con su permisio I'll explain.

So the House succeeded in passing a 90% tax on bonuses given to employees of AIG and any company receiving at least $5 billion in bailout money. But only with those evil rich employees whose family income is above $250,000 a year will have to pay this 90% tax.

You just cannot like what you're seeing here. These politicians are targeting specific individuals out there who have received some money that the politicians, for political purposes, just do not want them to have. So they pass a law allowing the government to seize that money. Can you imagine where this goes from here? How about Ann Coulter? She delights in writing books that just irritate the ever-luvin' puddin' out of Democrats and liberals. Let's say that one of Nancy Pelosi's flying monkeys reports to the Princess that Coulter made $1.5 million from her last book. This money was legally paid to Coulter pursuant to a contract. Sound familiar? But Pelosi feels that Coulter has made this money by promoting divisiveness in the population, so she decides that punishment is in order. She then has her minions pass a bill establishing a 90% tax on the royalties from all books and writings that promote political dissention and defame public servants in the Congress of the United States. Come on now, you tell me the big huge difference between a confiscatory tax on legally earned bonuses and one on legally received book royalties.

This is going nowhere folks. It will never make it through the Senate. If the members of the House had any appreciation at all for the Constitution it wouldn't have gone this far. And why, pray tell, would that be? That would be because of one pesky little clause found in our (once) supreme law of the land.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5 - United States Constitution

"No bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

Do you know what that means? The key is the word "attainder." Let's go to Websters: It's a 15th century word meaning "extinction of the civil rights and capacities of a person upon sentence of death or outlawry usually after a conviction of treason." A definition, this one from the Catholic Encyclopedia, describes "bill of attainder" thusly: "A bill of attainder may be defined to be an Act of Parliament for putting a man to death or for otherwise punishing him without trial in the usual form. Thus by a legislative act a man is put in the same position as if he had been convicted after a regular trial."

Well, in this case the Congress isn't trying to put anyone to death ... they're just trying to steal some money. They are trying to deprive some individuals of property that is rightfully and lawfully theirs without accusing them of a crime and without the benefit of any trial ... except, that is, for this trial that has been taking place in the media for the last week. Well, there's that pesky little Constitution again. A man cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, and in our country due process means a trial before a jury of one's peers. Barney Frank et al are trying to take these people's money through legislative action without a trial. I would truly hope there isn't a federal judge in this country that wouldn't smack this idiocy down at the earliest opportunity.

This isn't about whether or not those people deserved those bonuses. Perhaps they don't. But the bonuses were paid pursuant to a legally enforceable contract. A contract BTW that was seen approved and dated by Tim Gietner and Chris Dodd. So where should the outrage be? Can you rationalize focusing your anger on Ed Liddy. This (Liddy) is a guy in the job for six months who wanted to serve his country and is being paid $1.00 per year to unwind a financial disaster not of his making and must take take grief from the flying monkeys in congress?

The property belongs to the employee. Now we have politicians who are trying to take it away just because they're unhappy and embarrassed because they didn't take care of this little problem before the bailout money was paid.They sat there yessterday and preened and bitched and beat their collective breast while demonstrating their total lack of any understanding of contract law of AIG's business model. They are idiots!

On to the Senate. Let's hope someone over there has read the Constitution.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

In over the collective heads.

Yesterday, President Obama and tax cheat Tim Geithner outlined their plan for small businesses. But before doing that, Obama wanted to make sure he had his say about these AIG bonuses. And not surprisingly, he believes that they are outrageous. Not only that, but he wants tax cheat Tim Geithner to "pursue every single legal avenue" to block the payments.

Obama, of course, just had to use this occasion to play into the wealth envy. He used one of my favorite words ... "greed." He said, "This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed ... This isn't just a matter of dollars and cents. It's about our fundamental values ... All across the country, there are people who work hard and meet their responsibilities every day, without the benefit of government bailouts or multi-million dollar bonuses. And all they ask is that everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington, play by the same rules." What rules would that be, PrezBO? Abiding by your contractual obligations? That rule?

Here we have Obama wants to worry about fundamental values. Where were those values when he nominated a tax cheat to be the Secretary of the Treasury and the head of the IRS? Willfully cheating on your taxes is OK. Getting a bonus for the work you've done pursuant to a contract is not.

Well---here's the view all of us including the "Chosen One" should be acting on. The American taxpayer owns 80% of AIG. WE are the owners and have the necessary proxies to do what ever the hell we want with AIG. Having that kind of ownership that makes the congress and the Executive branch the Board of Directors. Rather than act the role of the Board they sit back and snipe at the guy running the AIG mess for $1.00 a year. ONE DOLLAR!

So my advice to congress and PrezBo is shut the hell up and do your god-damned job!

Saturday, March 07, 2009

Go Figure

One of the big topic of conversations around dinner tables (or in my case, a lunch box filled with discarded ears), is Obama's tax philosophy. Some find it confusing - for he claims he's for tax cuts, yet he's still raising taxes for some Americans (otherwise known as rich jerks).

Now, here's the thing: if the president is going to cut taxes for something like 95 percent of the population, then he`s got to think that tax cuts are good. I mean, you don`t do something to 95 percent, unless it works.

So, why not just go to 100 percent?

Seriously: Imagine having a classroom full of kids waiting for a flu vaccine. Do you only give it to 95 percent of the class? No - if you believe there`s an antidote that repairs what's wrong, you don't leave any one out.

But here, we do.

The question, then, is why.

Well, It's not because we need the revenue, because that cash from the top 2 to 5 percent won't help.

So then, why?

Oh yeah - that five percent is "rich." And if you've been basting in the sauce of class warfare most of your life - the rich need to be punished, even if all they've done wrong is get rich.

Which is a nasty form of negative reinforcement. Look, if you're going to get nailed for elevating yourself to a higher financial class, after awhile, you`re going to think, "Why bother."

And then, "Is that meth?"

Worse, the definition of rich? Bull crap. What's rich in one area, is poor in another. A family can live happily on 75 grand in Kansas, but in Manhattan, they'll be turning tricks for oatmeal. Inevitably, the so-called rich are going to have to move out of cities, so they can live on skimpier means – which means a lot of whiny Columbia grads wandering confused at Ace Hardware.

And that's something we can all live without.

It`s Saturday, and it`s time for the Saturday's list!

Because, it's Saturday and I feel like crap but not nearly as crappy as what the "Chosen One" and his American Idol presidency has done so far to prove without a doubt that how he ran for president was a lie!

So far: what we`ve learned in the first six weeks of Obama`s presidency!

-When Wall Street suffers, so does main street. The distinction between the two made by Obama is a ruse – class warfare rhetoric that worked to win an election, and lose an economy. But what a historic election!

-"Historic" doesn't mean it can`t be disastrous. For example, see the sky. It`s falling.

-If you`re a corporation - throwing parties is totally evil in these hard times. But if you`re the President – then it`s perfectly fine to bask in your messiah-like popularity every Wednesday night. Seriously, he really is as gorgeous in person as he is on the stamps we haven`t made yet, but certainly will.

-In Canada you can behead a man, and get away with it - which makes me wish that all those folks who said they were moving there during the Bush administration, actually did.

-Jon Stewart understands it`s easier to pick on some dude from CNBC, than to question harmful policies put forth by a charming President. Great job Jon – speaking truth to power.

-Unlike the world press – countries like Russia, Iran and Venezuela haven`t let Obama`s abs go to their heads. Yeah, he`s cute and everything, but check out our missiles

- Obama is no longer worth the trouble. The only way now to stop the madness is for Americans to go after Congress. Seeing how the Obama Administration is actually pretty unconcerned that the most successful system for human survival and happiness in the history of mankind is being dismantled in favor of politics and policies that have failed all over the world, it makes it hard for me to say something hopeful about Obama`s presidency.

I guess it`s above my pay grade.

Has anyone seen or heard from Paul Volker?

Thursday, March 05, 2009

Ya just gotta love it.

Letter from a Law Student:

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters,

We've stuck together since the late 1950s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know that we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and just will not ever agree on what's right. So let's just end it right now while we can do it on friendly terms. We can smile, shake hands, chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and each go our own way.

So here's a model separation agreement.

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a portion. That's going to be the difficult part, but I'm sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy. Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate taste. We don't like redistributive taxes so you can have those. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. And since you hate guns and you hate war, we'll take the firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. But you are going to be responsible for finding a biodiesel vehicle big enough to haul them around.

We'll keep the capitalism, the greedy corporations, the pharmaceutical companies; we will keep Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have the homeless, the homeboys, the hippies and illegal aliens. We will keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, the greedy CEOS and all of the rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and we'll let you have NBC and Hollywood.

You can be nice to Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer anybody that threatens us. You can have the peaceniks and the war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we will provide them with security. You won't have to worry about it. We will keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley Maclaine. You can also have the UN, but we will no longer pay the bill.

We will keep the SUVs, the pickup trucks and the oversize luxury cars. You can have the compacts, the subcompacts and every Subaru station wagon you can find. You can give everybody healthcare, if you can find any practicing doctors. We will continue to believe that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. We will keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and the national anthem, and I am sure you will be happy to substitute in their place "Imagine." I'd like to teach the world to sing "Kumbaya" or "We are the world." We will practice trickle-down economics and you can give trickle-up poverty your best shot. And since it so offends you, we will keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots. And if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the friendly spirit of parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in about 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J Wall

Law student and an American

P.S. You can also have Barbara Streisand and Jane Fonda

Wednesday, March 04, 2009

Idiot

The "Chosen one" yesterday told us that he wanted us to go out and buy stock.

Is he kidding? He's waging an all-out war against capitalism, and he wants us to buy stocks? This man who wants a government-controlled economy wants us to invest in the stock market? This is like the Surgeon General telling us to go out and have unprotected sex with and HIV infected, drug addicted street whore.

Yeah ... let's all do that!

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Read the Speech

After getting a chance to sit and read the text of "The Chosen One's" speech of Tuesday night I tried to find some analogous framework in my life that was relevant to the content of "His" speech. I found that I could only relate to when I was in my teens and 20's.

Way back in the 1950's and 1960's, one of the easiest ways to get a woman out of her party dress was to use the apocalypse as your wing man. The old line, "Honey, what if the world were to end tomorrow," was designed to narrow prospects for her future, in the hopes that she would spread her legs. And of course, the next morning (if the tryst lasted that long), the sense of terror and urgency would disappear - along with the young man, the lady's honor and probably a thing or two from the fridge and/or her purse.

So it's no wonder that after President Obama's speech, I felt a little like the suckered chick. See, up until last Tuesday night, we were all in a state of panic, thanks to Obama – but now, judging by Tuesday night's tone - it turns out, maybe things aren't so bad after all. "We will recover," he now says. And to me, it feels like the morning after - and he`s saying, "Anyway babe, that was great - I'll call you."

I hope he`s right. I still have a little confidence in the guy, and I want to be wrong about the expanding role of government. But the problem with exaggerating fear is that it obscures legitimate fear. When referring to Iraq, he talks of "ending" the war, instead of "winning." That the concept of victory is unseemly to him – well, that kinda scares me. And tucked away near the end of his address, he manages only a few words about the war on terror, giving it less weight than his obsession for windmills. The scary fact is, if a terror attack were to happen tonight here in the US - our economic troubles would be wiped off the front pages.

Then you'd be truly scared – which probably means we should hook up later.

I mean, seriously –life is short, and why die with regret?

I have a sleeping bag in my truck and I wrote you a poem. Let me get my guitar.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

The Speech last night

It seemed that the focus of Obama speech last night was to convey the message that all of the economic problems faced by this country were created by evil banks and criminal CEOs "disappearing on private jets." This was classic leftist populism. Us vs. them. The ordinary people engaged in mortal combat with the monsters of capitalism --- and government is here to save you.

This was an "America is great because of government" speech ... and the message was that more government we have the greater America will be. Obama has his finger on the pulse of the people. People want more government. They want the government to provide them with the basic necessities of life. The age of self-reliance is waning - the age of government dependency is on the rise.

When this country first began to flourish historians and social scientists took note. They traveled from Europe to the United States to witness this miracle first hand. They studied what was working and what was not .. and they put their thoughts on paper. Its really too bad some of those writings aren't explored in today's government schools - but I can understand why that is so. There seemed to be one universal warning that was sounded by many of these scholars: Once the American people figure out they can use the ballot box to reach into someone else's pocket .. we're screwed. Well, the American people have figured that out ... and Obama is their champion. The question now is how do you manage to take a population that is dependent on their ability to use the government as an instrument of plunder to want to once again stand on their own two feet?

Monday, February 23, 2009

You Have To Be Kidding...

Here’s the headline:

Obama to Stress Fiscal Responsibility

Here’s the only possible response:

Alcoholics Urge Sobriety

Sheesh!

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Pampered litle shits....

So there`s some kind of student protest going on at New York University, and it serves one important purpose: to show you how many tools actually attend New York University.

According to the New York Times, these students are vowing to continue occupying the school cafeteria until their important demands are met. Sadly, none of these demands include a better quality of vegetarian corn dog - instead what`s listed is "a thorough annual reporting" of the college`s budget, a freeze on tuition, and get this: 13 scholarships given every year for students from the Gaza Strip (which I believe is an Arabic Gentleman`s Club on the Jersey Turnpike).

Okay, I know that these students probably think they`re speaking truth to power – but in reality, they`re nothing more than pampered poodles who need a good a spanking, preferably by me while wearing my patented spiky spanking glove (with spikes). Look, if you have a problem with the tuition – go to another school. That`s how it works. I mean, seriously, I can`t afford to fly first class – but that doesn`t mean I protest United Airlines. I just fly coach.

Well, actually, I go Greyhound.

More important, these scholarships for Gaza Strip students are little more than a calculated effort by self-centered spoiled brats to make themselves appear thoughtful and sympathetic to their progressive professors and the scruffy scribes at the Village Voice. Somehow we`re all supposed to think they`re heroically selfless - when they`re just being what they accuse evil rich Republicans of being: greedy, soulless bastards.

If Ronald Reagan was alive, and Governor of New York – he turn on the hoses. And I`d bring the soap.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Change you can believe in..

  • The Dow at a 10-year low.
  • A tax cheat running the IRS
  • Another tax cheat as the Chief of Staff
  • A trillion-dollar plus federal deficit
  • Over one-half of voters relieved of any federal tax liability
  • Government mandated limits on executive compensation
  • Three failed attempts and still no Commerce Secretary
  • Tom Daschle rides his free limo into the sunset - after paying taxes he evaded.
  • The White House performance czar turns out to be a tax cheat also
  • Lobbyists hired to work for the Obama Administration
  • The census gets politicized
  • Double government spending in one year
  • The word "freedom" fades into obscurity
  • Increasing home loan mortgage rates across the board
  • Millions of Americans made dependent on government
  • Moving unionization-by-intimidation forward
  • Welfare checks become "tax cuts."
  • Illegal aliens free to work on taxpayer-funded "stimulus" projects
  • Welfare reform reversed, states ordered to increase welfare roles
  • Move to silence critical talk radio shows
  • Selling Senate seats
  • Obama books in religious sections of book stores
  • More government workers, not private sector jobs
  • A government bureaucracy to intrude on doctor/patient relationships
  • Stage set for medical services rationing
  • Annual welfare checks for middle income families

Illinois and Democrats just keep giving and gining

I'll just make this simple. If Roland Burris, the new Democrat Senator from Illinois, were a Republican ... he would be burnt toast. As it is you have to work to find the media even referring to this character as a Democrat.

You do know the story, don't you? After Blago appointed him to fill Obama's Senate seat Burris was called back to Illinois to testify before a state Senate committee looking into Blago's corruption. While under oath Burris said that he had not had discussed making any payments to Blago with any of Blago's staff, including his brother. Then Burris discovers that the feds have a tape of him discussing a campaign donation with Blago's brother. Don't you just hate it when that happens? So ... time for a little CYA. Burris suddenly wants to submit an affidavit to the Illinois senate expanding his testimony. Since they have him on tape he had better fess up and tell them that he talked to Blago's bro about some money.

This is called perjury. We learned while Bill Clinton was president that only Republicans like Scooter Libby are punished for perjury. Democrats get a pass. Let's see if it works this way for Burris.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Prince Charley is an ugly misinformed Toad...

Surprise: a rich environmentalist is a stupid hypocrite.

It`s true, Prince Charles is traveling to South America for an environmental tour of the place, in order to preach the crisis that is climate change.

(Notice how "climate change" has now replaced "global warming" as the panic button - since more scientists now predict a new era of global cooling, as people in general are wising up to Al Gore`s lies).

The problem here of course, is that the Prince is using an A1319 Airbus – which normally seats 140 passengers, but in this case it will fit just 14 staffers, and the Prince`s two monstrous ears. Camilla won`t be traveling with him - she`ll be towed along in a blacked-out horse trailer because she`s easily spooked.

According to experts in this field, this 16,000 mile trip will cost over a half million dollars, and create a 322 ton carbon footprint (equal to five Joy Behars or twelve farting cows). Now, this would usually make Prince Charles – the ultimate self-righteous greenie - a hypocrite. But only if the climate change science he speaks of is correct. Which it isn`t. Skeptics of CO2 theology are winning the battle, finally – Prince Charles could fly around the world a thousand times and it wouldn`t make a bit if difference.

But sadly, his global jetting does far less harm to the planet than his spreading of poisonous ideas that discourage development and destroy economies. Mark Steyn said America is rich enough to survive stupid ideas – to which I must add South America isn`t.

But what can you expect from royalty? They embrace climate change, because it discourages human creativity – something royalty can understand. They do nothing but produces likenesses for commemorative plates – and, unless it`s ear wax, they cannot understand how real things are made.

To them it`s easier to put trees before humans – mainly because they`re closer genetically to the former than the latter.

Monday, February 16, 2009

Have to have it pass RIGHT NOW-

First .. remember this. This whole so-called "stimulus" bill is the largest government spending bill in the history of the U.S. Government. Would you have expected anything less from a Democrat-controlled Washington DC?

The Democrats just had to have this stimulus bill passed by Friday. I still think it is because Nancy Pelosi had to make sure it was passed before she jetted off to Italy .. but the Democrat House broke a promise by voting on the bill without giving the public and the media 48 hour to review the darn thing. We were told that they just couldn't wait another minute. Had to do it NOW! They had to have it NOW, my friends, so that it could be signed into law before the people really started to figure out what this was all about - the growing of government - and that our economy may well be improving without this hideous bill.

Now another broken campaign promise. During the "Change You Can Believe In" campaign Obama told us that he would never sign a critical piece of legislation until the American people have had five days to read it, ask questions about it and understand it. That promise is no longer operative. He said that to get elected --- but he certainly never met it. Obama will sign this disaster tomorrow in Denver.

Denver? Yeah ... Denver. He sure is enjoying that Air Force One bit, isn't he?

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Religion of Peace---or is it Piece?

New York man Muzzammil Hassan founded pro-Islam station Bridges TV five years ago to combat the negative public image of Muslims. He is currently under arrest for beheading his wife.

image
The couple in happier times, before Hassan removed his wife’s head