Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Speakers include SE Cupp, Leslie Sanchez, Dana Loesch, Tammy Bruce, Liz Cheney, Michelle Bachmann, and more.
Monday, September 27, 2010
But, I recently drove past the UAW building and noticed that their yard was full--and I mean full-- of candidate signs. It occurred to me that knowing who to NOT vote for is at least better than taking a chance on randomness. So, I pulled into their lot and wrote down all the names of the smaller ticket candidates. I know that if the UAW is supporting these people then I don't want to vote for them.
Friday, September 10, 2010
I really don't know what to say about this--except that I will not be endorsing this GOP candidate.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Hmmm...yet, the stimulus was a success?
America's lowly citizens have more common sense than our ruling class. Those of us who work for our money know that when you don't have money, you don't spend money. Obamanomics follows a philosophy that suggests if I have no money, but continue to spend money and amass a mountain of debt, I'll eventually have money. Huh? (I wish they were as worried about debt as I am--I think I'm developing debtaphobia.)
But, without obamanomics we'd still eventually start descending anyway-- thanks to the Department of Education. Our schools no longer focus on exceptionalism, but cater to mediocrity. Instead of challenging our brightest students, we bring them down a notch so that the "average" and "below average" students don't "feel bad." (My parents took a different approach--if I didn't get an "A" my dad made sure I felt bad. So, I ended up valedictorian only because I was trying to avoid getting lectured. Well, and because that approach taught me to do the best I could do instead of settling for "average.")
What the DOE fails to realize is that the exceptional students are the ones who will create the jobs for the other students. I'd say it will feel worse for the average student to grow up to no jobs than it will if everyone doesn't get an "A."
So long as we keep catering to mediocrity, we will continue dropping in the rankings. Instead of changing our path, the government is spending us into oblivion to expedite our decent.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Anytime I hear that the Dems want to do something that sounds halfway decent, I check it out. Usually (and I would say always, but I'm sure I'd be overlooking something) what they say they are proposing is nothing like what they are proposing.
So, these fantastic tax cuts they want to give to small business are a research-and-development tax credit (R&D) and a payroll tax holiday. The payroll tax holiday means:
Employers get out of paying the (Social Security) tax for the rest of the year for each unemployed worker they hire at a salary under $106,800. To qualify as unemployed under the terms of the bill, the employee must have been out of work for at least 60 days before being hired. If new employees stay at the job for at least 52 weeks, employers can cash in a $1,000 tax credit on their 2011 tax return.This is not an across-the-board tax cut. And, it will not do what it's supposed to do-- this won't create a single job; no one is going to hire someone just for a tax break-- they are going to hire someone because they need more help and can afford to pay that person's salary. Plus, employers hire the best person for the job-- not someone who meets the requirements set by the Dems.
The R&D tax credit is also not across-the-board-- it's only for companies who develop or improve products or processes. I'd like to know how many small businesses can even claim this tax credit. I read that it's difficult for small companies to get even if they have better support to show the IRS than bigger companies.
By the way, the fine print says they are simply raising other types of taxes to account for their lost revenue.
These tax cuts are a bad joke compared to the Bush tax cuts. If the Bush tax cuts expire, capital gains taxes increase by 33%, and income tax rates will rise to nearly 40%. The taxes on dividends will go up by 164% from 15% to almost 40%. Many small business owners live on dividends because it's difficult to set a salary when you have good months and bad months, so this is a nightmare.
Just by raising the dividend tax the federal government will profit about $200 billion--in other people's money. I can't even wrap my head around why the government thinks it's entitled to steal 40% of a citizen's earned money. How much more money does the government need?
Here's an idea: how about we try some bi-partisanship and do both party's preferred tax cuts?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
How can they claim to be both non-partisan AND the liberal response to the conservative Tea Party? I'm thinking about going...until then, I'll try not to pass judgement.
The Coffee Party, the liberal response to the conservative Tea Party movement, is in the midst of wrapping up the early registration phase for its upcoming National Convention in Louisville, Kentucky.
The event, scheduled to take place on September 24 through the 26 at the Galt House Conference Center in Louisville, is billed as a chance "to reset the national dialogue so that we can address the challenges that we face as fellow Americans instead of partisans in a spectator sport."
Monday, August 30, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Everyone is guilty of saying something stupid from time to time. I mean, if I had a dollar for every time I said something stupid, I’d be as rich as John Yarmuth--well, maybe not quite as rich.
But, as a patriot, I don't make comments about the limits of government lightly. The Constitution is sacred, and freedom warrants the utmost respect.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to be the philosophy of our representatives. First, when asked about the limits of the commerce clause by one of his California constituents, Congressman Pete Stark said that the federal government “can do almost anything in this country".
What a stupid thing to say. This is a statement that should get you jailed. Yet, somehow, Congressman Yarmuth missed this embarrassment.
When responding to a similar question on the limits of the commerce clause, Yarmuth said, “It really doesn’t prohibit the government from doing virtually anything – the federal government. So I don’t know the answer to your question, because I am not sure there is anything under current interpretation of the commerce clause that the government couldn’t do.”
John Yarmuth, keep saying stupid things.
Will the real John Yarmuth please stand up?
Monday, August 23, 2010
In July, a poll by the Democracy Corps found that 55% of voters think the word "socialist" applies to Obama. Although it's good news that Americans are finally waking up, I sure hope that doesn't mean 7% of Americans think that being a socialist is not extreme.
Approximately 65 supporters of Republican nominee Todd Lally’s bid the 3rd District seat in Congress protested outside The Courier-Journal building for an hour Saturday morning, saying the newspaper is not being fair to the candidate.I was surprised to see the CJ cover the protest, but even more surprised that the protest received attention from the national blogosphere. In particular, Hullabaloo wrote some harsh criticism of the protesters and even compared the conservative protest to Woodstock. According to the blogger:
“We want to protest the non-coverage of the 3rd District race,” said Kevin Dicken, 50, of Fern Creek, a volunteer with the Lally campaign. Lally “represents what I think this country needs” on issues such as health care, the economy and abortion.The protesters contended the newspaper’s coverage is biased toward Democrats, and, in 3rd District race in particular, has written eight stories about the Democratic incumbent, John Yarmuth, for every story it has written about Lally.
They are living out their angry Woodstock fantasy pretty much everywhere these days. (Yes, Beck's calling his "Triumph of the Wingnut" event Woodstock too.) They are hoping for a bunch of liberals to spray them with fire hoses and scream at them on the way to church just so they can really have their midlife crisis in style....
...They're just upset about everything these days and they're taking it to the streets!
The paper explained that they strive to be "fair and balanced" but that they can't cover every campaign event. (If they're like most members of the press, they'll immediately assign a full time reporter to the GOP campaigns now that a bunch of angry, middle aged white people have expressed their inner Abby Hoffman. So you can't say it isn't effective.)
I'm waiting for the Joseph Kraft of today to have the blinding insight that these people are not mainstream and that it's the working and middle class moderate liberal who represents the silent majority. I suppose the first question is, who's the next Joseph Kraft/David Broder?
So, now, every time a group of people congregate, for any reason, it’s Woodstock? The picture painted by mentioning Woodstock is 180 degrees from the truth considering most tea partiers are huge supporters of family values. He could have at least refer to conservative protests as Woodstock minus the drugs, sex, and violence—but, then it wouldn’t be anything like Woodstock, would it?
The author thinks that tea partiers are some sort of fringe group (but Woodstock liberals are okay?) He's obviously never attended a tea party rally, so perhaps I should forgive his ignorance.
Personally, I think the tea party may be the greatest thing to happen to this country since Ronald Reagan (who was the greatest thing since sliced bread). But, suggesting I'm some sort of fringe lunatic would be giving me way too credit in the "interesting" department--I'm just not that exciting. And, tea partiers are no more fringe than those who stood up for freedom in the Revolutionary War.
The reason the author considers tea partiers to be outside the realm of mainstream America is because the press paints them as racist, closed-minded, right-wing extremists. The blogger's entire opinion is based off media bias, which is exactly what Saturday's group was protesting.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Hooper bashed the Republican Party and the tea party for not submitting to the Ground Zero mosque. According to Politico, Hooper blames the "tea party movement [for] liberating the inner bigot in people."
But, in November of 2001, just after the 9/11 attacks, Hooper was asked if he would condemn Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and he replied, "It's not our job to go around denouncing." A few months later, Hooper tried to explain his comments by saying, "We're not in the business of condemning."
So, according to Hooper, Jihadists targeting and killing civilians on US soil is not worthy of condemnation; but people expressing sympathy for 9/11 victims, and getting ticked off (nonviolently) at the idea of then building a mosque at the attack site, is bigotry worthy of condemnation.
The mosque, supposedy purposed to promote peace, has already failed in its so-called mission and it's not even built yet. If they want to promote peace, they should get a clue that this is not the way to do it. Their persistence suggests they have other motives.
If CAIR really cares about American-Islamic relations, they'd suggest the builders of the mosque step back and say, "Sorry, we didn't mean to be insensitive; we'll build somewhere else." But, they don't want good relations with us--they want to use our own laws against us to cram their religion down our throats, and smack us in the face with their jihadist victories.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
I am extremely disappointed in the leaders of Tea Party Nation who have "Quench your thirst for freedom" as the tag line to their newsletters. They must mean THEIR definition of freedom. They claim to support limited government and emphasis citizens' rights, but only as far as THEY want that freedom to go. What gives them the right to say "this should be free, but that shouldn't?" It is the Constitution that should determine our freedoms, and the Constitution does not address marriage.
This is one area where I agree with the Libertarian platform. All laws regulating the consensual sexual acts of adults have no place in a "free" country. The government doesn't even have the right to outlaw prostitution (prostitutes are providing a service). Why is it illegal to have sex with someone for money unless you film it and sell the video?
The arguments against same-sex marriage are largely the same as those arguments used by the Democratic Party to stop blacks from being freed from slavery, granted citizenship, or given voting rights. It puts gay people into a category as second class citizens.
I really like what these gay tea partiers have to say from BigGovernment.com. They basically want the government out of marriage. They look at it more as a contract you enter, which the Constitution does include. They also discuss how much they are discriminated against at gay bars for being conservatives, but have never been treated with anything but respect as gay men at a tea party.
I'm sure I will take a lot of flack for this post to which I say, bring it on. I love free speech.
I know one argument will be that the people of California voted against it; so, the judge should not overturn a law embraced by the majority, and against the will of the people. But, at one time, the majority believed that blacks should be denied certain rights. The majority does not have a right to decide when we just ignore the Constitution. All men are created equal--not just when the majority wants them to be.
(Disclosure statement: I have met the President of Tea Party Nation and she is a lovely person. They also featured my book in one of their newsletters, for which I am grateful. In general, I agree with their ideas and beliefs. I hope their linking to an anti-gay marriage article was an attempt to show one point of view, and that they allow for free speech from people on both sides of the gay marriage argument. I would encourage them to link to the other side of that argument in their next newsletter.)
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Today I received an email from Michelle Obama, asking me to sign Barrack's birthday card.
Here is some of the email:
Friend --Unfortunately, we'll be paying for it for a long time.
Every year, our family tries to come up with a fun way to wish Barack a happy birthday.
And this August 4th, when he turns 49, I have something new in mind.
This has been a big -- and hectic -- year for him. After signing the Affordable Care Act and Wall Street reform into law -- and completing his first year as president -- I think it's safe to say we will remember it for a long time.
And I know full well how much he credits this movement, and the work of supporters like you, for the change that we've accomplished.I'll say.
So I'm putting together a birthday card that I would like you to sign. Together with other Organizing for America supporters -- and me, Malia, Sasha, and Bo -- we'll wish him a happy birthday and let him know that we're ready to take on the year ahead alongside him.
This year also brought a lot of surprises -- some good and some bad.
Supporters like you have helped him make the best of it -- by contacting Congress to help push stalled legislation forward, by re-engaging supporters in the political process, by giving back with service projects across the country, and so much more.So, it's referred to as "stalled legislation" instead of legislation the American people didn't want and fought to prevent.
And while we can't know what the coming year will bring, all of us, working together, will continue pushing forward for change.So, here is the link if anyone wants to wish Barrack a Happy Birthday. There's even a spot for a personal message. http://my.barackobama.com/
Will you help make this a memorable birthday for Barack and wish him a happy 49th?
Thursday, July 22, 2010
From the Daily Caller:
So, now we have reporters having to report on other reporters, judges "legislating from the bench," legislators running banks and car companies, and NASA focusing on Muslim relations. The insanity is driving me insane.
In the hours after Sen. John McCain announced his choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate in the last presidential race, members of an online forum called Journolist struggled to make sense of the pick. Many of them were liberal reporters, and in some cases their comments reflected a journalist’s instinct to figure out the meaning of a story.
But in many other exchanges, the Journolisters clearly had another, more partisan goal in mind: to formulate the most effective talking points in order to defeat Palin and McCain and help elect Barack Obama president. The tone was more campaign headquarters than newsroom.
The conversation began with a debate over how best to attack Sarah Palin. “Honestly, this pick reeks of desperation,” wrote Michael Cohen of the New America Foundation in the minutes after the news became public. “How can anyone logically argue that Sarah Pallin [sic], a one-term governor of Alaska, is qualified to be President of the United States? Train wreck, thy name is Sarah Pallin.”
Not a wise argument, responded Jonathan Stein, a reporter for Mother Jones. If McCain were asked about Palin’s inexperience, he could simply point to then candidate Barack Obama’s similarly thin resume. “Q: Sen. McCain, given Gov. Palin’s paltry experience, how is she qualified to be commander in chief?,” Stein asked hypothetically. “A: Well, she has much experience as the Democratic nominee.”
“What a joke,” added Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker. “I always thought that some part of McCain doesn’t want to be president, and this choice proves my point. Welcome back, Admiral Stockdale.”
Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation noted that Obama’s “non-official campaign” would need to work hard to discredit Palin. “This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn’t say – very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here – scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away …… bang away at McCain’s age making this unusually significant …. I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against [Obama].”
Ryan Donmoyer, a reporter for Bloomberg News who was covering the campaign, sent a quick thought that Palin’s choice not to have an abortion when she unexpectedly became pregnant at age 44 would likely boost her image because it was a heartwarming story.
“Her decision to keep the Down’s baby is going to be a hugely emotional story that appeals to a vast swath of America, I think,” Donmoyer wrote.
Politico reporter Ben Adler, now an editor at Newsweek, replied, “but doesn’t leaving sad baby without its mother while she campaigns weaken that family values argument? Or will everyone be too afraid to make that point?”
Monday, July 19, 2010
The problem is that al-Awlaki is a US born American citizen. And, if they can seek him out to assassinate him, what does that mean for other American citizens who may be suspected (possibly falsely) of terroristic ties?
Think about an American citizen, ordered to be killed by the President or government official, because he or she is suspected of having ties to terrorism. No trial, no due process, no chance to stand up for himself or herself. The implications are terrifying considering the Department of Homeland Security has already labeled tea party groups as "right-wing extremists" capable of terrorism.
I'm not standing up for al-Awlaki. He is probably guilty (notice the word "probably"). But, this is about liberty, and standing up for the rights guaranteed with American citizenship, no matter who that citizen is. This is about standing up for "innocent before proven guilty." It's about the Bill of Rights and the Constituiton, and the knowledge that when they are being threatened, we are all threatened.
Those who think, "Who cares, this doesn't affect me" remind me of a quote from Holocaust survivor Martin Niemöller:
“In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because
I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't
speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no
one was left to speak up.”
Perhaps the assassination of some terror-suspected American citizens would make America a safer place. But, as Ben Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Thursday, July 15, 2010
More and more, it seems that we are not so unlike Iran in that "the radical minority" are ruling the country and "driving the majority into the edge of the abyss."
Less than 20% of Americans identify themselves as "liberal." And, I wonder how many of those would say they are radical socialist-leaning liberals like those who run the White House, the Senate, and the House.
Like in Iran, the sane majority watch in despair as the radical Obama Administration races us towards the annihilation of everything America stood for. We watch as the government destroys the future for our children, robs them of freedom, and endangers all our lives with weak foreign policy and an inability (and lack of desire) to protect our borders from illegals and terrorists.
The aforementioned spy hoped that by passing along information to the CIA the Americans would help the Iranian people "get rid of this evil government." Many of us hold a similar hope for liberation from the Obama regime so we can start rebuilding the damage they've already done, and save ourselves from becoming more like Iran. But, if no one was willing to save the Iranians, who is going to help us?
Friday, July 9, 2010
According to an October 2006 article from the Courier Journal by Kay Stewart during his first campaign against Anne Northup:
Yarmuth said if he's elected he would divest himself of holdings that could mean a personal gain for him if he voted on an issue, including his 70,000 shares of Almost Family stock.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Huh? We are going to waste taxpayer dollars during a recession on making Muslims "feel good?" How do you measure success of a mission to make a group "feel good?" At what point do you say "Mission Accomplished?" How "good" exactly do they have to feel?
I think Charles Krauthammer said it best:
"This is a new height in fatuousness. NASA was established to get America into space and to keep is there. This idea to feel good about their past and to make achievements is the worst combination of group therapy, psychobabble, imperial condescension and adolescent diplomacy."
Bolden also said that one of the complaints about NASA is that they are too NASA focused and "too NASA-centric." Shouldn't those who work for a company be focused on the company?
You can watch some of the interview here:
Friday, July 2, 2010
So, if you want to build homes, don't hire a construction company, give the money to the homeless guy on the corner. If you want to grow more food, don't plant more seeds, just eat.
Members of Congress should have regular psychiatric evaluations and be regularly drug tested.
Hook Pelosi up to a lie detector test, have her give the same speech, and be sure to have a straight jacket handy in case she actually believes what she is saying.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Apparently, liberal journalists have been using the JournoList site to share ideas on how to sway public opinion to the left. The conspiracy was discovered when someone leak David Weigel's private emails.
Earlier this month NewsBusters reported that according to USA Today's former editor Kenneth Paulson, media bias is a myth. Paulson said:
"Despite the perception of news media bias, the truth is that most traditional news organizations — primarily newspapers, their Web sites and local TV and radio — adhere to in-house ethics codes and keep politicians at arm’s length."
Of course, pool parties don't count. What happens on the Slip'n Slide, stays on the Slip'n Slide. But, emails are fair game.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
When he gave the original warning, he took a lot of flack. “I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college, uh, seminar,” said Obama, a former university professor. “We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so that I know whose ass to kick.” This sent the media into a tizzy, setting off a race-baiting war of words.
For over 2 years now, we’ve all been wondering what it would take to get all sides of the media riled up over something he’s said. When he said, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” the media didn’t bat an eye. When he mentioned his desire to “spread the wealth around,” most of the media looked the other way. And recently he said, “I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” Still the media remained silent.
But, when he said the word “ass,” all hell broke loose.
Once again those on the left side of the isle fought to racially charge the American public. After years of being accused of not being black enough, they suggested that he’s now too black. And, worse, it has been suggested that he’s an “angry” black man. And, according to CNN’s John Blake, “Many white Americans don't like angry black men.”
Luckily, the media’s attempt to instigate Rodney King-like riots has failed. And, we should put all that behind us now, because for the first time, Obama will step up to the plate and take his licks.
It’s obvious why he came to the conclusion that the backside needing punishment was his own. Oil rigs are to be inspected every month, but the BP rig only had 6 inspections in 2008. Records show a total of 16 missed inspections. The last “inspector” sent wasn’t an inspector, but an inspector who had just started training. And, his ignorance of the Jones Act has delayed the cleanup process.
Perhaps the greatest offense pointing to Obama’s guilt is his insistence on wasting his time passing anti-American legislation. He’s been so focused on government regulations against the individual’s freedom that it’s left little time for regulations that might truly matter. He’s stayed fixated on infringing upon the rights of the little guy, while ignoring regulations put in place to prevent a giant environmental disaster.
He was focused on health care coverage, and making sure that all Americans were forced to have it whether they wanted it or not. He didn’t realize then that if the ocean water is replaced with oil, it could lead to the destruction of the human race as we know it, rendering health care passé.
He was busy using his time and effort, and all our environmental resources, on his cap and trade plan. He didn’t have time to worry about an environmental issue that could actually happen. He was occupied with perpetuating the mass hysteria that air is going to cause the Earth to overheat and kill us all. Now, not only will every glacier melt and submerge all 7 continents, but we’ll be covered with oil as well.
Still, many say this punishment is perhaps too extreme. He could have simply cancelled one of his family vacations back to his homelands, Kenya and Indonesia. He could have just apologized to the American people for all his months of government waste, fraud, spending, and negligence. Or, he could have suggested his own impeachment for crimes against the Constitution. But, as a man of integrity, he knew that all those options were too easy.
Truman proved it with Hiroshima; Reagan proved it with Qaddafi; and now, Obama will prove with his own rear-end that there is no more severe a punishment than a presidential ass whooping.
Still, many of those on the right will hate everything Obama does no matter what it is. They argue that his self-inflicted punishment is for egocentric reasons. They contend he is trying to re-invent himself with the realization that people are turned off by narcissism, but respect humility; that he hopes he can use his butt in a punt to score a political field goal.
They claim that he knew he didn’t need to meet with BP CEO Tony Hayward because he had already figured out who needed a foot to the derriere. But, he agreed to talks with the CEO as a PR stunt that would hopefully take the attention off his tush.
“I’m not sure he is well-suited for the kind of contortionism necessary to self-inflict this kind of punishment to my satisfaction,” said one voter. Others wonder why he doesn’t ask for a volunteer to give him a kick in the pants. After all, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney have wanted to kick his ass for a long time.
The President’s supporters say performing the act himself shows that he’s a man of his word. One pollster said that Americans can only take 937 broken promises and campaign lies before public opinion starts to shift. This statement would represent lie 938, if he does not do the butt kicking himself.
At one time, the United States was the greatest nation on Earth. We saw the tides turning when we saw our President bow in submission to Saudi Arabia’s leader. Still, no one ever would have thought that our country would go so low as to have the Leader of the so-called “Free World” attaching to his back a self-created “kick me” sign.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has yet to announce when the ceremonial ass kicking will take place. Tea Party leaders have said that once the date is announced they will begin erecting mega-screens across the country for the ultimate movie viewing experience.
Congressional Democrats have asked that Congress observe a 45 second moment of silence in reverence to our fallen leader. And, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has already warned Republicans that any laughter will result in “Joe Wilson consequences.”
(Disclaimer: This story is an entirely fictitious parody. To the author’s knowledge, Obama is not double-jointed. Obama has not announced any plans of self-harm as punishment for his role and response to the BP oil spill. For now, Obama is still meeting with BP and “experts,” and his warning to kick the gluteus maximus of those responsible remains an empty threat.)
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
--There are not 42,000 gallons of oil spilling into the ocean daily as the government estimated. It's closer to 2.5 million/day.
--The moratorium on drilling is more expensive than the spill, costing oil rig operators an estimated $16.5 million/day.( This reduction in commerce is not going to help with our trillions of dollars of debt.)
--Since we can't drill, we have to import more foreign oil, most of which is from countries that propagate terrorism. So, our national debt goes up, we give more money to the people who want to kill us, and we prolong our efforts in Afghanistan, perpetuating the War of Terror, er, I mean, the 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' (This means it costs more money, and more importantly, more lives.)
--Instead of focusing on plugging the hole, our President is focused on using this crisis to pass his agenda. His energy plan will not do anything except make you poorer. It simply means that every time you turn on the lights or cook a meal, the government gets more of your money. This is particularly harmful to companies that create jobs. And, it's more likely to stall developments in energy technology because taxes do not breed innovation, freedom does.
Obama's Oval Office speech confirmed the suspicions that Obama does not care about the environment. He cares about pushing his agenda to get more of your money so you hand over to him more power and control. If he cared about the environment he'd focus on PLUGGING THE HOLE, not on cap and trade.
After the speech last night, Obama's approval rating is 42% according to Rasmussen. That 42% must have been watching The Real Housewives of NYC.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
You have 48 hours or...
-- we will fine you?
--we will take over your company and rename it Obama Oil?
--we will cap it ourselves? (Then just do it.)
--Obama will finally have a photo-op with BP's CEO?
--Obama really will suck it up in a straw?
--Obama will announce "whose ass" he is going "to kick?"
Oil rigs are supposed to be inspected monthly, but BP's rig has only been inspected 6 times since 2008. And, for the last inspection, the government sent an inspector-in-training.
Obama gives BP ultimatum: 48 hours or else — then heads to youth soccer game
Friday, June 11, 2010
Monday, June 7, 2010
Apparently Joy Behar thinks that if you don't believe in every single thing that someone else believes, you can't appreciate that other person's talents. Worse, she likens it to the KKK and South African apartheid. I guess her only friends are also closed-minded, complaining, judgemental, nasally, whining liberalomaniacs.
Who would have thought that Whoopi would ever be the voice of reason? It's like we've entered a parallel universe.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Clearly this man needs to take a remedial class on our Constitution.
Stated clearly in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), the federal government is granted the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". So, not only should he and Congress "not endorse boycotts," but they should actually prohibit them. Instead of enforcing this clause for its intended purpose, he uses it to infringe on our liberties with powers undesignated to him, like the health care takeover.
The federal government should promote legal immigration and combat illegal immigration. The Constitution's Preamble states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." We cannot "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" if we do not protect and preserve the integrity of our borders.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
Some parents actually want to force hot dog manufacturers to change the shape of hot dogs.
Here's an amazing thought: Why don't parents just cut them up so that they are no longer a choking hazard? When I give my two-year-old a hot dog, I cut it into strips. It's usually too hot to eat right away anyway, so this not only solves the choking hazard issue, but helps him to not burn his mouth.
By this time next year, taxpayers will probably have spent millions for Congress to pass the Hot Dog Safety Bill. No more footlongs for you.
I wonder what sort of earmarks and student-loan-type takeovers they will sneak into the bill. Is this really worth the fight to save parents the hassle of having to cut up their kid's food?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
How fitting that the same state that gave us America's Worst and First Fascist President, also brought us Snookie. I guess that's a bit of an improvement.