The Comrade really sucks at press conferences. If he doesn't have a teleprompter, he's really not a very astute speaker. He's boring as he talks, gropes for platitudes and for escape hatches so that he can remain blameless. He's an idiot. A failed president. Befuddled, helpless, and generally useless. He thinks Joe Biden has a point. Stupid.
In a press conference this morning, he blamed Congress for failing to pass a budget. He doesn't understand why he should get involved. Ain't his problem.
Doesn't matter that he's (at least) titular head of the dem party. He hasn't got anything to do with the budget -- or the economy, for that matter. That remains George Bush's fault.
However, the Comrade does have a few suggestions. Like change the tax code. Not a bad idea, except for the way he wants to do it -- which includes eliminating things like tax credits on mortgage interest and taking away corporate tax breaks for the oil and gas industry.
And this last... the oil and gas industry don't get any special breaks. They don't get any subsidies.
All the Comrade and the buttheads on the dem side of the aisle want to do, really, is jack up the price of oil & gas-generated electricity so high that wind and solar power look competitive, which they aren't.
The fact is, wind and solar power cost about twice what oil and gas power costs. And that's in term of development, or building generation plants, as well as cost to consumer-- what you see on your monthly bill.
Do you want to pay twice as much for electricity? Is that going to spur the economy and create more jobs?
Exactly how far is your head up your butt, Comrade? He's showing multiple signs of assholism, the mental illness that relentlessly attacks people who spend a lot of time inside the Beltway. But the Comrade seems to suffer from "early onset" assholism. He probably picked it up in Chicago. And that isn't likely to change, but will only get worse as the 2012 election nears.
Go ahead, Comrade, keep up with the stupid and irrelevant and irresponsible, I might add, commentary. See if that gets you re-elected.
And, by the way, not a very good dodge on the Boeing-socialist labor conflict, either. Though he did manage to take about 15 minutes to say absolutely nothing. Don't want to offend the SEIU. Don't want that Purple Tide throwing garbage on the White House lawn, do we?
Save the Republic.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Georgie don't know much about history
Watching the news today, where Li'l Georgie Stephanopoulos tried to trash Michele Bachmann for claiming that the Founding Fathers "worked tirelessly" to end slavery. Bachmann offered John Quincy Adams as an anti-slavery type... Actually her initial claim was correct.
Among the people at the Continental Congresses and the meeting in Philly where they wrote the Declaration of Independence, MOST of them regarded breaking away from England as the perfect opportunity to also end slavery. At the time, slavery was widely regarded as a hideous moral evil. Thomas Jefferson blamed the British for bringing it to the colonies, and even wrote that into the Declaration of Independence, though I believe it was struck out in revision.
George Washington was very much against slavery and freed all of his slaves upon his death. Jefferson wanted to, but he was so deep in debt, as he fell ill, his creditors began wheeling around Monticello like so-many vultures. Those slaves TJ didn't free before his death were taken up as payment for what he owed out.
And if you actually read the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, states: "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."
This clause actually abolished the importation of slaves into the colonies as of 1808. The British were doing something similar, so this was kind of in keeping with the international situation.
And interesting to note that it was the delegates from South Carolina and Delaware who most strenuously objected to the abolition of slavery -- to the point that they weren't going to join in any rebellion that did away with slavery. South Carolina because its economy depended upon slave labor; Delaware because a large part of its economy was involved in the slave trade.
Take a look at the historical context for this. Many of the northern colonies were founded by religious groups -- Puritans, Calvinists, Quakers, Catholics in Maryland. The most influential of the southern colonies were based on land grants from the Queen/King of England -- like Elizabeth I gave Sir Walter Raleigh what is now much of Virginia and just about all of North Carolina.
These land grants were given out as payment for services rendedered, more or less. They were intended for money-making plantations -- like the "Sugar Islands" in Caribbean, for example. Also because such a grant to Raleigh gave Elizabeth a toehold in North America pretty much within shooting range of the Spanish in Florida. See, it goes way back...
So the northern colonies -- cold land, difficult to cultivate -- were to a pretty impressive degree populated by people who sort of generally didn't like slavery because it was morally wrong. In the south, they needed labor.
And there were white slaves -- indentures -- as well as black slaves. The Colonie of Virginia was the first to intitute a "Slave Code" differentiating white indentures from black slaves, and claiming that while whites should/could free themselves, blacks would always be slaves. "Blacks" were defined as people with a black mother, please note. The father could be any color. Black women slaves often were regarded as a sort of convenience for white masters -- but any resulting kids would have no birthright, no claims to any estates, etc. See how that works?
The northern colonies -- most of them -- were outlawing slavery even before the Revolution, on moral grounds. But the South was a different story.
At the time of the Revolution, the cash crops of the southern colonies were tobacco, hemp, rice, and indigo. Don't see any cotton? Cotton was nice but too damn hard to cultivate. The bolls from the plants are full of tiny seeds. By the time the slaves carded or picked out all those seeds, the selling price for cotton fiber made it non-economical.
Then the cotton gin was invented -- at almost the same time the U.S. Constitution was being written. Over the next 20 years, with the price of cotton very accessible, and cotton itself a very attractive alternative to wool and silk, the demand for cotton went through the roof.
So now slavery wasn't so terribly immoral anymore in the South. Cotton was (and still is) difficult to cultivate -- it take certain soil and sucks all the nutrients out of it. It has to be carefully hoed and constantly tended. Even before the boll weevil hit the U.S., cotton was prey for whole variety of destructuve bugs. In short, growing cotton -- even after the gin -- was a labor-intensive proposition.
And slavery became... not so bad. I mean, the slaves were learning "civilization" working from dawn to dusk, living in dirt-floor shacks, and denied their traditions, right? So went the harangue from southern pulpits, from southern agriculturists, yada-yada-yada. By God, the slave owners were positively ennobled by keeping slaves. Right? Noblesse oblige.
So, yes, the Founding Fathers were probably majority against slavery. They sort of pointed the nation in that direction. But then came the rise of King Cotton. And did I say cotton wrecked the soil? It did. And the planters knew it, but rather than replenish the soil, or leave it fallow for a couple seasons to "rest," they continued to overwork it until it became pretty much non-productive and then they moved .... west -- into Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc. And started a profitbable agribuiness in sugar as well.
Meanwhile, the ol' Yankees up north just got more and more dead set against slavery. The Quakers not only gave it up and abolished it in Pennsylvania, but starting preaching to southern planters about the evil of their ways, passing out pamphlets and all...
And the rest is history, as they say. Jefferson gave up any efforts at even promoting abolition. And so did just about anyone else. Slavery became deeply entrenched in the southern states, an embedded feature of society and the whole culture. The rich planters learned they could treat "poor white trash" (and yes, that was how they referred to them, even then), like servants, yet maintain the status quo by reminding these guys that, yeah, they might be trash, but at least they were a step above the slaves.
Then we enter into the long, drawn out, bitter, violent and eventually near-terminal run-up to the Civil War.
And yes, the Founding Fathers started it all, and even predicted civil war or something like unless/until the issue of slavery was dealt with.
The Republican Party was founded on anti-slavery. When Abe Lincoln was elected as the first Republican president -- that was all the slave states needed to know. South Carolina officially seceded about six weeks after the election and months before Lincoln was inaugurated.
I could go on. But this is enough, I think. Georgie just don't know much about history, and clearly less than Michele Bachmann does.
Save the Republic.
Among the people at the Continental Congresses and the meeting in Philly where they wrote the Declaration of Independence, MOST of them regarded breaking away from England as the perfect opportunity to also end slavery. At the time, slavery was widely regarded as a hideous moral evil. Thomas Jefferson blamed the British for bringing it to the colonies, and even wrote that into the Declaration of Independence, though I believe it was struck out in revision.
George Washington was very much against slavery and freed all of his slaves upon his death. Jefferson wanted to, but he was so deep in debt, as he fell ill, his creditors began wheeling around Monticello like so-many vultures. Those slaves TJ didn't free before his death were taken up as payment for what he owed out.
And if you actually read the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, states: "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."
This clause actually abolished the importation of slaves into the colonies as of 1808. The British were doing something similar, so this was kind of in keeping with the international situation.
And interesting to note that it was the delegates from South Carolina and Delaware who most strenuously objected to the abolition of slavery -- to the point that they weren't going to join in any rebellion that did away with slavery. South Carolina because its economy depended upon slave labor; Delaware because a large part of its economy was involved in the slave trade.
Take a look at the historical context for this. Many of the northern colonies were founded by religious groups -- Puritans, Calvinists, Quakers, Catholics in Maryland. The most influential of the southern colonies were based on land grants from the Queen/King of England -- like Elizabeth I gave Sir Walter Raleigh what is now much of Virginia and just about all of North Carolina.
These land grants were given out as payment for services rendedered, more or less. They were intended for money-making plantations -- like the "Sugar Islands" in Caribbean, for example. Also because such a grant to Raleigh gave Elizabeth a toehold in North America pretty much within shooting range of the Spanish in Florida. See, it goes way back...
So the northern colonies -- cold land, difficult to cultivate -- were to a pretty impressive degree populated by people who sort of generally didn't like slavery because it was morally wrong. In the south, they needed labor.
And there were white slaves -- indentures -- as well as black slaves. The Colonie of Virginia was the first to intitute a "Slave Code" differentiating white indentures from black slaves, and claiming that while whites should/could free themselves, blacks would always be slaves. "Blacks" were defined as people with a black mother, please note. The father could be any color. Black women slaves often were regarded as a sort of convenience for white masters -- but any resulting kids would have no birthright, no claims to any estates, etc. See how that works?
The northern colonies -- most of them -- were outlawing slavery even before the Revolution, on moral grounds. But the South was a different story.
At the time of the Revolution, the cash crops of the southern colonies were tobacco, hemp, rice, and indigo. Don't see any cotton? Cotton was nice but too damn hard to cultivate. The bolls from the plants are full of tiny seeds. By the time the slaves carded or picked out all those seeds, the selling price for cotton fiber made it non-economical.
Then the cotton gin was invented -- at almost the same time the U.S. Constitution was being written. Over the next 20 years, with the price of cotton very accessible, and cotton itself a very attractive alternative to wool and silk, the demand for cotton went through the roof.
So now slavery wasn't so terribly immoral anymore in the South. Cotton was (and still is) difficult to cultivate -- it take certain soil and sucks all the nutrients out of it. It has to be carefully hoed and constantly tended. Even before the boll weevil hit the U.S., cotton was prey for whole variety of destructuve bugs. In short, growing cotton -- even after the gin -- was a labor-intensive proposition.
And slavery became... not so bad. I mean, the slaves were learning "civilization" working from dawn to dusk, living in dirt-floor shacks, and denied their traditions, right? So went the harangue from southern pulpits, from southern agriculturists, yada-yada-yada. By God, the slave owners were positively ennobled by keeping slaves. Right? Noblesse oblige.
So, yes, the Founding Fathers were probably majority against slavery. They sort of pointed the nation in that direction. But then came the rise of King Cotton. And did I say cotton wrecked the soil? It did. And the planters knew it, but rather than replenish the soil, or leave it fallow for a couple seasons to "rest," they continued to overwork it until it became pretty much non-productive and then they moved .... west -- into Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc. And started a profitbable agribuiness in sugar as well.
Meanwhile, the ol' Yankees up north just got more and more dead set against slavery. The Quakers not only gave it up and abolished it in Pennsylvania, but starting preaching to southern planters about the evil of their ways, passing out pamphlets and all...
And the rest is history, as they say. Jefferson gave up any efforts at even promoting abolition. And so did just about anyone else. Slavery became deeply entrenched in the southern states, an embedded feature of society and the whole culture. The rich planters learned they could treat "poor white trash" (and yes, that was how they referred to them, even then), like servants, yet maintain the status quo by reminding these guys that, yeah, they might be trash, but at least they were a step above the slaves.
Then we enter into the long, drawn out, bitter, violent and eventually near-terminal run-up to the Civil War.
And yes, the Founding Fathers started it all, and even predicted civil war or something like unless/until the issue of slavery was dealt with.
The Republican Party was founded on anti-slavery. When Abe Lincoln was elected as the first Republican president -- that was all the slave states needed to know. South Carolina officially seceded about six weeks after the election and months before Lincoln was inaugurated.
I could go on. But this is enough, I think. Georgie just don't know much about history, and clearly less than Michele Bachmann does.
Save the Republic.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Blago guilty for doing it "The Chicago Way"
To tell you the truth, I suspected that Rod Blagojovich, former governor of Illinois, would be found "not guilty" in his second trial for what? bribery, extortion, trying to sell the Comrade's senate seat to the highest bidder, etc. etc.
He was "not guilty" on all but one charge in the first trial, and would have had to serve a maximum of five years for that.
Today, after his second trial, and after testifying -- something he didn't do first time around -- and yammering on and on in his own charming style for days and days, the jury decided he was guilty and lied about almost everything. Out of 21 charges, he was found guilty on 18, not guilty on one, and on two, the jury was deadlocked. Blago could serve something like 300 years. But I doubt he will.
Interesting that Blago's defense has ALWAYS been, "That's the way you do politics in Illinois." Especially in Chicago. For example, as governor, Blago never spent much time in the state capitol, Springfield. He had an office in Chicago and/or did business out of his home -- in a neighborhood not far from where I lived for about five years. But see, Blago knew where the action was: Chicago, not Springfield.
He was pretty well hooked up with the old dem machine, too. His wife is the daughter of Dick Mell, who I believe was an alderman or something at one time, among other things. The Mell family is kinda like the Daleys in terms of being one of the little political dynasties in Chicago. They're all pretty much a bunch of crooks, but they also make the laws and run the courts, so they usually don't get prosecuted.
It took a federal investigation to arrest and prosecute Blago -- done by people from "outside" more or less.
And I have absolutely no doubt that Blago was only behaving the way he'd learned to behave from his mentors in the dem political machine. He seemed to favor "pay-to-play," which means, "Give me a big enough bribe, and I'll let you make a bid for that project." Or, in regards to the Comrade's senate seat, "This is f**king golden!" The chance of a lifetime to request some monumental pay-off -- either in money or political favors.
He made the comment while, apparently, drunk with power and basking in the glory of having a whole U.S. Senate seat under his tiny thumb.
Blago really isn't that bright. He's clever. He's a good talker. He has the charm of a mischievous kid. His whole demeanor being, "You don't want to hold me accountable. I'm just too damn cute."
The "charm" didn't work this time. He blabbered on and on and on in this second trial, and probably hung himself. That's the way we do it in Chicago.
I can picture all these white-faced and trembling appartchiks at some bar downtown, under the shadow of the rusting Picasso, sipping whiskey and wondering how the hell it happened that the jury wasn't properly bought. Someone may lose their job at Streets & Sanitation for that slip-up. Or maybe they were just as tired of Blago's tell-all bullshit as everyone else is. It makes the city look bad. (That, of course, is a joke.)
I have no doubt that all of Blago's diatribes and efforts at exposing the "culture of corruption" in Illinois and Chicago -- all of his contentions and machinations, lies and distortions -- every word is strangely true. You grab, push, bribe, extort, lie, cheat, stab your friends in the back -- that's the Chicago Way.
We see it in operation every day in the White House. Just interesting that a jury in Chicago didn't like it.
Save the Republic.
He was "not guilty" on all but one charge in the first trial, and would have had to serve a maximum of five years for that.
Today, after his second trial, and after testifying -- something he didn't do first time around -- and yammering on and on in his own charming style for days and days, the jury decided he was guilty and lied about almost everything. Out of 21 charges, he was found guilty on 18, not guilty on one, and on two, the jury was deadlocked. Blago could serve something like 300 years. But I doubt he will.
Interesting that Blago's defense has ALWAYS been, "That's the way you do politics in Illinois." Especially in Chicago. For example, as governor, Blago never spent much time in the state capitol, Springfield. He had an office in Chicago and/or did business out of his home -- in a neighborhood not far from where I lived for about five years. But see, Blago knew where the action was: Chicago, not Springfield.
He was pretty well hooked up with the old dem machine, too. His wife is the daughter of Dick Mell, who I believe was an alderman or something at one time, among other things. The Mell family is kinda like the Daleys in terms of being one of the little political dynasties in Chicago. They're all pretty much a bunch of crooks, but they also make the laws and run the courts, so they usually don't get prosecuted.
It took a federal investigation to arrest and prosecute Blago -- done by people from "outside" more or less.
And I have absolutely no doubt that Blago was only behaving the way he'd learned to behave from his mentors in the dem political machine. He seemed to favor "pay-to-play," which means, "Give me a big enough bribe, and I'll let you make a bid for that project." Or, in regards to the Comrade's senate seat, "This is f**king golden!" The chance of a lifetime to request some monumental pay-off -- either in money or political favors.
He made the comment while, apparently, drunk with power and basking in the glory of having a whole U.S. Senate seat under his tiny thumb.
Blago really isn't that bright. He's clever. He's a good talker. He has the charm of a mischievous kid. His whole demeanor being, "You don't want to hold me accountable. I'm just too damn cute."
The "charm" didn't work this time. He blabbered on and on and on in this second trial, and probably hung himself. That's the way we do it in Chicago.
I can picture all these white-faced and trembling appartchiks at some bar downtown, under the shadow of the rusting Picasso, sipping whiskey and wondering how the hell it happened that the jury wasn't properly bought. Someone may lose their job at Streets & Sanitation for that slip-up. Or maybe they were just as tired of Blago's tell-all bullshit as everyone else is. It makes the city look bad. (That, of course, is a joke.)
I have no doubt that all of Blago's diatribes and efforts at exposing the "culture of corruption" in Illinois and Chicago -- all of his contentions and machinations, lies and distortions -- every word is strangely true. You grab, push, bribe, extort, lie, cheat, stab your friends in the back -- that's the Chicago Way.
We see it in operation every day in the White House. Just interesting that a jury in Chicago didn't like it.
Save the Republic.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
USA as the Comrade's sandbox?
The Comrade just announced that he's releasing millions of gallons of oil from the USA's reserves.
Hey, asshole, have you noticed, the price is GOING DOWN?
Like, where the hell where you last month this time? Kissing ass in Europe? Taking advantage of all those travel perks before your sorry ass hits the pavement in January, 2013?
Clearly this stupid butthead took a look at the polls and now hopes he can increase his popularity by bleeding away our emergency resources. Doesn't matter if/when the population takes the hits, but mess with the Comrade's poll numbers and it's no holds barred, full speed ahead. He will destroy this nation and leech out any remaining resources -- if he thinks he can hold on to his little job.
'Course he has created such an economic environment in the USA, and developed such a piss-poor reputation for himself, that if he loses the White House, the asshole probably will never work again. Oh, maybe a few speaking engagements in front of the labor unions or at Van Jones' little commie enclaves here and there. But otherwise....
This is very dangerous. But the Comrade is such a monumental blockhead, apparently he doesn't recognize the difference between the nation's interests and his own personal campaign "emergencies."
And here's another tactic. A key congressional committee has been discussing for months how to design a budget. The key problem with the economy being, clearly, NOT A PROBLEM OF INCOME, BUT OF SPENDING, even Dickhead Durbin, who really is a brainless hack, was calling for spending cuts yesterday.
But today, the dems in the committee announced they will not negotiate any agreement without tax increases. So Eric Cantor and other Republicans got up and walked out. Please note, the current Republican House majority was elected primarily to cut spending and taxes. The dems don't have any kind of mandate like that at all. They're just little mindless puppets dancing on the end of strings held by the Comrade and Pelosi.
Some certified moron named Don Gerstein was just on Fox babbling about how the Republicans are "playing politics." So this is the latest gimmick, enhancing the Saul Alinsky play book. It's not the dems fucking up the nation with their games of Capture the Flag, it's the Republicans. Yeah sure. Does anyone seriously believe this addle-brained dimwit?
And so the dems are back to "Tax the rich." Which just isn't going to fly, fools.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, stood up and begged the Comrade to display some leadership in all this. Nice try, Mitch, but not a chance.
The Comrade doesn't make decisions. He couldn't even decide how to vote on zoning laws and highway reconstruction projects when he was in Illinois, and it's interesting to note his judgment hasn't got any better since he moved into the White House.
The thing is, as the Comrade sees it, you've got to avoid being accountable for ANYTHING. Let someone else do. If it's successful, rush up to the cameras and get your face all over to claim the credit. If it fails -- well he was playing golf. He didn't have a damn thing to do with it. It's all George Bush's fault.
This person, the Comrade, is such a damn fool it almost boggles the mind. And his manipulation and game-playing is so ham-handed and obvious it makes you wonder where his ol' boys David Fluff and Axelrod are. 'Course, apparently Axelrod knew when it time to cut and run.
So go ahead, you silly dem (like dumb) clowns -- trash the USA as you flail around desperately hoping to find a following. Everything the dems are doing right now only makes things worse. And don't think we, the electorate, don't know it. You forget, we have to pay for all your silly bullshit, while you just sit on your fat asses inside the Beltway and spin your nasty schemes.
I'm just hoping the USA can survive long enough to get these blockheads out of office. We just can't afford this bullshit.
Anything in all of this could inspire a charge of impeachment? Look real hard, please, you constitutional lawyers.
Save the Republic.
Hey, asshole, have you noticed, the price is GOING DOWN?
Like, where the hell where you last month this time? Kissing ass in Europe? Taking advantage of all those travel perks before your sorry ass hits the pavement in January, 2013?
Clearly this stupid butthead took a look at the polls and now hopes he can increase his popularity by bleeding away our emergency resources. Doesn't matter if/when the population takes the hits, but mess with the Comrade's poll numbers and it's no holds barred, full speed ahead. He will destroy this nation and leech out any remaining resources -- if he thinks he can hold on to his little job.
'Course he has created such an economic environment in the USA, and developed such a piss-poor reputation for himself, that if he loses the White House, the asshole probably will never work again. Oh, maybe a few speaking engagements in front of the labor unions or at Van Jones' little commie enclaves here and there. But otherwise....
This is very dangerous. But the Comrade is such a monumental blockhead, apparently he doesn't recognize the difference between the nation's interests and his own personal campaign "emergencies."
And here's another tactic. A key congressional committee has been discussing for months how to design a budget. The key problem with the economy being, clearly, NOT A PROBLEM OF INCOME, BUT OF SPENDING, even Dickhead Durbin, who really is a brainless hack, was calling for spending cuts yesterday.
But today, the dems in the committee announced they will not negotiate any agreement without tax increases. So Eric Cantor and other Republicans got up and walked out. Please note, the current Republican House majority was elected primarily to cut spending and taxes. The dems don't have any kind of mandate like that at all. They're just little mindless puppets dancing on the end of strings held by the Comrade and Pelosi.
Some certified moron named Don Gerstein was just on Fox babbling about how the Republicans are "playing politics." So this is the latest gimmick, enhancing the Saul Alinsky play book. It's not the dems fucking up the nation with their games of Capture the Flag, it's the Republicans. Yeah sure. Does anyone seriously believe this addle-brained dimwit?
And so the dems are back to "Tax the rich." Which just isn't going to fly, fools.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, stood up and begged the Comrade to display some leadership in all this. Nice try, Mitch, but not a chance.
The Comrade doesn't make decisions. He couldn't even decide how to vote on zoning laws and highway reconstruction projects when he was in Illinois, and it's interesting to note his judgment hasn't got any better since he moved into the White House.
The thing is, as the Comrade sees it, you've got to avoid being accountable for ANYTHING. Let someone else do. If it's successful, rush up to the cameras and get your face all over to claim the credit. If it fails -- well he was playing golf. He didn't have a damn thing to do with it. It's all George Bush's fault.
This person, the Comrade, is such a damn fool it almost boggles the mind. And his manipulation and game-playing is so ham-handed and obvious it makes you wonder where his ol' boys David Fluff and Axelrod are. 'Course, apparently Axelrod knew when it time to cut and run.
So go ahead, you silly dem (like dumb) clowns -- trash the USA as you flail around desperately hoping to find a following. Everything the dems are doing right now only makes things worse. And don't think we, the electorate, don't know it. You forget, we have to pay for all your silly bullshit, while you just sit on your fat asses inside the Beltway and spin your nasty schemes.
I'm just hoping the USA can survive long enough to get these blockheads out of office. We just can't afford this bullshit.
Anything in all of this could inspire a charge of impeachment? Look real hard, please, you constitutional lawyers.
Save the Republic.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
The Republican field -- no more of "the same old same old"
Well, you know I'd heard so much about the heretofore invisible John Huntsman as a likely Republican candidate for president in 2012 that I looked him up. Read up on his record, sat through a couple speeches and comments of him on YouTube. He's very polished.
A commentator on Fox once said, "If you had a box marked 'President of the United States' and opened it up, you'd probably pull out Mitt Romney." Same can be said for Huntsman. They've read Emily Post.
But now I just saw some woman on Cavuto who raised $1.2 million or something like that for Huntsman last night. She used to be a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, and just drooled vague very honeyed things about Huntsman.
He's supposed to be "taking the high road" in his campaign, or focusing on indefinite an lumpy dream-things like "I just love America," without articulating any particulars on any issues.
I'm sorry. That's how the Comrade was elected. Just not good enough.
And the fact that a Clintonite is backing Huntsman just sort of sends chills up my spine. I mean, the same way photos of Auschwitz does, not in the Chris Mathews sense.
For my money, right now, I like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry.
This might change, of course, and Perry's not even in the race. But I don't' want some mealy-mouthed slippery fish pronouncing platitudes and vague promises. No, I'm looking for a candidate with some balls. And Bachmann's got more than probably 85% of the men currently in office anywhere in the USA.
I just find it strange that Huntsman seems to have the Imprimatur of the democrats. The democrtas WANT to run the Comrade against Huntsman, probably because Huntsman isn't likely to call out the Comrade as a brainless idiot with nothing but failed policies behind him, spreading misery and despair everywhere he goes, destroying the one nation in the world that understands human freedom and has always defended it. Huntsman will just focus on some kind of pie-in-the-sky glory-to-come, and maybe rattle off some wonderful Mandarin proverbs to prove his point. And Republicans are supposed to embrace him?
I don't know, somehow that just doesn't work for me. I want to know what he's actually going to DO. I want to see him so outraged at the destruction of America that the veins stand out in his forehead. I want to see the bare knuckles, know what I mean?
Just sick of all the hope and change bullshit. And I don't really care about polite. Obviously.
Save the Republic.
A commentator on Fox once said, "If you had a box marked 'President of the United States' and opened it up, you'd probably pull out Mitt Romney." Same can be said for Huntsman. They've read Emily Post.
But now I just saw some woman on Cavuto who raised $1.2 million or something like that for Huntsman last night. She used to be a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, and just drooled vague very honeyed things about Huntsman.
He's supposed to be "taking the high road" in his campaign, or focusing on indefinite an lumpy dream-things like "I just love America," without articulating any particulars on any issues.
I'm sorry. That's how the Comrade was elected. Just not good enough.
And the fact that a Clintonite is backing Huntsman just sort of sends chills up my spine. I mean, the same way photos of Auschwitz does, not in the Chris Mathews sense.
For my money, right now, I like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry.
This might change, of course, and Perry's not even in the race. But I don't' want some mealy-mouthed slippery fish pronouncing platitudes and vague promises. No, I'm looking for a candidate with some balls. And Bachmann's got more than probably 85% of the men currently in office anywhere in the USA.
I just find it strange that Huntsman seems to have the Imprimatur of the democrats. The democrtas WANT to run the Comrade against Huntsman, probably because Huntsman isn't likely to call out the Comrade as a brainless idiot with nothing but failed policies behind him, spreading misery and despair everywhere he goes, destroying the one nation in the world that understands human freedom and has always defended it. Huntsman will just focus on some kind of pie-in-the-sky glory-to-come, and maybe rattle off some wonderful Mandarin proverbs to prove his point. And Republicans are supposed to embrace him?
I don't know, somehow that just doesn't work for me. I want to know what he's actually going to DO. I want to see him so outraged at the destruction of America that the veins stand out in his forehead. I want to see the bare knuckles, know what I mean?
Just sick of all the hope and change bullshit. And I don't really care about polite. Obviously.
Save the Republic.
But look at all the good he's done
The Federal Reserve today issued a statement that the US economy looks like it's going into a "double-dip" recession -- or should that be "triple-dip?" I don't know. Since the Comrade's been in office, it's kinda hard to keep track of the economic disasters.
At any rate, the Fed apparently says we can look forward only to more unemployment because consumers just aren't buying anything, because -- due at least partly to the price of gasoline -- they don't have any money to spare. If they're working. And that's a big if.
And Nasty Controlling Bitch Katrina Sibelius head of God only knows what -- I mean, don't you think you'd have to be just a little psychopathic to take a job like hers? -- has decided that all of us Americans need further encouragement to migrate our high-fat, high-protein diets to high-carbs -- which make you very fat and flabby, to boot.
Take my word on this. I've spent my entire life on one or another diet, and the only thing that works is high-protein, reduced carbs, unless you're a some kind of maniacal jogger. I love vegetables, but they're all carbs. And when you only eat a few of them, they only make you hungry, as in "appetizer." This is a fact borne out by the experience of every human culture.
So anyway, given the above -- that things are getting worse on both the economic and bully fronts, I've decided to look for the silver lining. I mean, something good must have come from something the Comrade's done so far, right? I mean, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, right?
So let's see....
Well, he shut down Gulf oil production, refuses to open drilling in ANWR, and has made coal so expensive to produce, coal companies are beginning to shut their facilities. So that means electricity will soon cost even more than gasoline.
I guess that pretty much eliminates any value that might be had from electronic cars.And maybe by this time next year, us citizens will have to decide if we want to buy pasta or fund one more hour of electric light and refrigeration in our homes. I mean, to stretch our unemployment handouts.
Oh well, there's socialized medicine. This has already increased insurance premiums by more than 100% in some cases and in a recent survey by someone, something like 30% of small business owners said they'd have to stop offering insurance all together under Obamacare.
Socialized medicine also reduces payments to doctors and other health care professionals and to hospitals. So far, these producers have been able to "cost-shift" their losses to private insurance. Like, if Medicaid only pays 40% of what's owed, the doctor, hospitals, et. al,, will simply raise prices 60% for people with private insurane.
If there's no more private insurance, these health care producers more than likely will no longer see Medicare/Medicaid patients. Happened before. When Medicaid was instituted in Illinois, four or five hospitals in blighted areas of Chicago shut down. Not enough patients with private insurance in those areas to carry the costs for everyone.
On top of that, the Comrade and Sibelius also see fit to give their friends and donors exemptions from socialized medicine.
This reminds me, during the Civil War, a rebel general named Cleburne suggested drafting the slaves into the Confederate army and giving them their freedom in exchange for service. Confederate President Jeff Davis noted that he couldn't do that because it made it look like freedom from slavery was a value.
Yeah. Like freedom from socialized medicine is also an apparently highly-sought-after value. And you can only get that if you kiss the Comrade's ass and fill his campaign coffers.
Shame on you suck-ups!
So, moving on, we have the draw-down of forces in Iraq, for which we can thank George W, and greater emphasis on Afghanistan, which is an apparently "unwinnable" war because we're dealing with tribal shamans and goatherds there. Like do they care about bringing their nation into the 21st century or even the "world community." I doubt it.
And now we also get to fight in Libya -- which is really none of our damn business. Libya has lots of oil, which it sells mainly to Europe. Why can't Europe defend its own interests? Aw, shucks, they're all depressed and destitute because their socialist economies are collapsing? What a damn shame.
You'd think the Comrade would look at that hot mess as a "teachable moment," but he's such a rigid idealogue, his mind is so closed and narrow, he can't really fairly assess what's going on there. Its just beyond the scope of his capabilities. If he looks at the truth of that situation, he'd have to admit -- even to himself -- that he's deliberately destroying the USA. And his ego's too fragile to ponder that. He'd probably end up in a strait jacket at Walter Reed, decorating his rubber room like the inside of million-dollar limo or Air Force One.
So, yeah, as the 2012 election looms larger and larger, let's keep in mind all these wonderful things the Comrade has done. And continue asking yourself and others:
Are you better off now than you were four years ago?
Save the Republic.
At any rate, the Fed apparently says we can look forward only to more unemployment because consumers just aren't buying anything, because -- due at least partly to the price of gasoline -- they don't have any money to spare. If they're working. And that's a big if.
And Nasty Controlling Bitch Katrina Sibelius head of God only knows what -- I mean, don't you think you'd have to be just a little psychopathic to take a job like hers? -- has decided that all of us Americans need further encouragement to migrate our high-fat, high-protein diets to high-carbs -- which make you very fat and flabby, to boot.
Take my word on this. I've spent my entire life on one or another diet, and the only thing that works is high-protein, reduced carbs, unless you're a some kind of maniacal jogger. I love vegetables, but they're all carbs. And when you only eat a few of them, they only make you hungry, as in "appetizer." This is a fact borne out by the experience of every human culture.
So anyway, given the above -- that things are getting worse on both the economic and bully fronts, I've decided to look for the silver lining. I mean, something good must have come from something the Comrade's done so far, right? I mean, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, right?
So let's see....
Well, he shut down Gulf oil production, refuses to open drilling in ANWR, and has made coal so expensive to produce, coal companies are beginning to shut their facilities. So that means electricity will soon cost even more than gasoline.
I guess that pretty much eliminates any value that might be had from electronic cars.And maybe by this time next year, us citizens will have to decide if we want to buy pasta or fund one more hour of electric light and refrigeration in our homes. I mean, to stretch our unemployment handouts.
Oh well, there's socialized medicine. This has already increased insurance premiums by more than 100% in some cases and in a recent survey by someone, something like 30% of small business owners said they'd have to stop offering insurance all together under Obamacare.
Socialized medicine also reduces payments to doctors and other health care professionals and to hospitals. So far, these producers have been able to "cost-shift" their losses to private insurance. Like, if Medicaid only pays 40% of what's owed, the doctor, hospitals, et. al,, will simply raise prices 60% for people with private insurane.
If there's no more private insurance, these health care producers more than likely will no longer see Medicare/Medicaid patients. Happened before. When Medicaid was instituted in Illinois, four or five hospitals in blighted areas of Chicago shut down. Not enough patients with private insurance in those areas to carry the costs for everyone.
On top of that, the Comrade and Sibelius also see fit to give their friends and donors exemptions from socialized medicine.
This reminds me, during the Civil War, a rebel general named Cleburne suggested drafting the slaves into the Confederate army and giving them their freedom in exchange for service. Confederate President Jeff Davis noted that he couldn't do that because it made it look like freedom from slavery was a value.
Yeah. Like freedom from socialized medicine is also an apparently highly-sought-after value. And you can only get that if you kiss the Comrade's ass and fill his campaign coffers.
Shame on you suck-ups!
So, moving on, we have the draw-down of forces in Iraq, for which we can thank George W, and greater emphasis on Afghanistan, which is an apparently "unwinnable" war because we're dealing with tribal shamans and goatherds there. Like do they care about bringing their nation into the 21st century or even the "world community." I doubt it.
And now we also get to fight in Libya -- which is really none of our damn business. Libya has lots of oil, which it sells mainly to Europe. Why can't Europe defend its own interests? Aw, shucks, they're all depressed and destitute because their socialist economies are collapsing? What a damn shame.
You'd think the Comrade would look at that hot mess as a "teachable moment," but he's such a rigid idealogue, his mind is so closed and narrow, he can't really fairly assess what's going on there. Its just beyond the scope of his capabilities. If he looks at the truth of that situation, he'd have to admit -- even to himself -- that he's deliberately destroying the USA. And his ego's too fragile to ponder that. He'd probably end up in a strait jacket at Walter Reed, decorating his rubber room like the inside of million-dollar limo or Air Force One.
So, yeah, as the 2012 election looms larger and larger, let's keep in mind all these wonderful things the Comrade has done. And continue asking yourself and others:
Are you better off now than you were four years ago?
Save the Republic.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Unions losing big-time
Whew! That was a close one. With less than 7% of the private sector work force in labor unions, the power-hungry political leeches who run these organizations were threatening to turn the USA into a wimpy. lifeless, poverty- riot- and strike-ridden nation like those in Europe. Even worse, they were doing things that might force us all to actually join a union, God forbid. Glad to say, looks like we're dodging that bullet -- thanks to the good sense of citizens, some elected representatives, and judges appointed in the pre-Comrade era.
For example, putting at least a comma at the end of the Wisconsin debacle with its public-employee unions, a State Supreme Court judge, whom the unions believed to be friendly to them, upheld the state law that terminates these unions' "right" to collective bargaining. Gee. Looks like those employees will have to face life head-on like everyone else, without being able to shake down the state government.
In another rather surprising development, the New Jersey state legislature voted to pass Governor Chris Christie's suggestion that the over-paid and underworked elite unionized public employees in New Jersey will have to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance. Aw, poor babies. They go to school for years to get all these degrees and credentials, they labor nine months out of the year for six hours a day -- and now they have to contribute to their insurance and pensions? Oh, the horror! They don't think that's fair. Maybe they should regard this as a "teachable moment." Like, figure it out, taxpayers can't carry you on their backs anymore.
Not directly related to unions (except in the unions' fondest dreams), Walmart was subject to some kind of a demonstration by employees, who stood out the Arkansas HQ, no doubt beating drums and singing updated versions of "I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night." Apparently they want more money. Well, don't we all? This group was not a union, but was sponsored by one or another union, probably SEIU. Far as I know, they had no impact at all, though they did get their pictures in a few newspapers.
Also involving Walmart, there was this rather amorphous class-action suit brought by women employees at Walmart claiming gender discrimination in raises and promotions and whatnot. This went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which just today ruled that the members of the "class" bringing the suit failed to specifically identify and/or name and/or prove any enterprisewide policy or attitude that's keeping them back. In other words, they don't have a case. Their suit was dismissed.
So I guess the existing legal "standard" for sexual harassment ("He's looking at me funny") may also eventually be revisited for lack of anything but a desire to levy fines and punishments on the heads of businesses.
Then we have the matter of Boeing, which has built a huge manufacturing plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state -- meaning you have a right to work there, whether or not you join the union. Boeing's plants in Washington state -- a closed shop state, meaning join the union or look elsewhere for a job -- complained that Boeing was establishing operations in South Carolina to avoid the threat of crippling strikes and production shut-downs.
Do you think so? Really? My question is: Well, who in their right mind wouldn't prefer doing business in a right-to-work state to avoid crippling strikes and production shut-downs? I mean, is there supposed to be something wrong with this?
They still have the unions in South Carolina, but workers are not compelled to join them.
So, knowing full well that they don't have a rational case against Boeing, the unions avoided the courts and filed a complaint against Boeing with the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, headed up now by a former pro-union hack and friend-of-the-communist-Comrade. The union says Boeing complained about the strikes and all that, so they're building the new plant in South Carolina as "retaliation" against the union. ("Dad! He keeps looking at me funny!")
With the various Comrade-appointed pro-commie officials infesting the executive branch, including the NLRB, the unions actually have a chance of getting a favorable ruling from NLRB. In which case, all Boeing workers South Carolina will be forced, by decree, to join the union or, more likely, Boeing will shut down the plant.
Intersting, the guy who heads up NLRB is supposed to be vetted and approved by the US Senate. But he wasn't. He was one of the Comrade's "interim appointments," meaning the Comrade waited until congress was out of session, then made a bunch of appointments saying, "Gee, but you guys weren't in Washington and we needed someone."
So anyway, in some kind of hearings today headed by Darryl Issa, who's chief of the committee that looks into goverment corruption, Issa was talking to the NLRB guy and actually threatened to shut down the agency. I really don't know enough about it, but I thought that was neat. And rather funny. Just the look of surprise on the NLRB guy's face. Like, "Who? Me? A power-grabbing marxist apparatchik? Where do you get that idea?"
Keep up the good work, folks, it's working.
Save the Republic.
For example, putting at least a comma at the end of the Wisconsin debacle with its public-employee unions, a State Supreme Court judge, whom the unions believed to be friendly to them, upheld the state law that terminates these unions' "right" to collective bargaining. Gee. Looks like those employees will have to face life head-on like everyone else, without being able to shake down the state government.
In another rather surprising development, the New Jersey state legislature voted to pass Governor Chris Christie's suggestion that the over-paid and underworked elite unionized public employees in New Jersey will have to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance. Aw, poor babies. They go to school for years to get all these degrees and credentials, they labor nine months out of the year for six hours a day -- and now they have to contribute to their insurance and pensions? Oh, the horror! They don't think that's fair. Maybe they should regard this as a "teachable moment." Like, figure it out, taxpayers can't carry you on their backs anymore.
Not directly related to unions (except in the unions' fondest dreams), Walmart was subject to some kind of a demonstration by employees, who stood out the Arkansas HQ, no doubt beating drums and singing updated versions of "I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night." Apparently they want more money. Well, don't we all? This group was not a union, but was sponsored by one or another union, probably SEIU. Far as I know, they had no impact at all, though they did get their pictures in a few newspapers.
Also involving Walmart, there was this rather amorphous class-action suit brought by women employees at Walmart claiming gender discrimination in raises and promotions and whatnot. This went all the way to the US Supreme Court, which just today ruled that the members of the "class" bringing the suit failed to specifically identify and/or name and/or prove any enterprisewide policy or attitude that's keeping them back. In other words, they don't have a case. Their suit was dismissed.
So I guess the existing legal "standard" for sexual harassment ("He's looking at me funny") may also eventually be revisited for lack of anything but a desire to levy fines and punishments on the heads of businesses.
Then we have the matter of Boeing, which has built a huge manufacturing plant in South Carolina, a right-to-work state -- meaning you have a right to work there, whether or not you join the union. Boeing's plants in Washington state -- a closed shop state, meaning join the union or look elsewhere for a job -- complained that Boeing was establishing operations in South Carolina to avoid the threat of crippling strikes and production shut-downs.
Do you think so? Really? My question is: Well, who in their right mind wouldn't prefer doing business in a right-to-work state to avoid crippling strikes and production shut-downs? I mean, is there supposed to be something wrong with this?
They still have the unions in South Carolina, but workers are not compelled to join them.
So, knowing full well that they don't have a rational case against Boeing, the unions avoided the courts and filed a complaint against Boeing with the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, headed up now by a former pro-union hack and friend-of-the-communist-Comrade. The union says Boeing complained about the strikes and all that, so they're building the new plant in South Carolina as "retaliation" against the union. ("Dad! He keeps looking at me funny!")
With the various Comrade-appointed pro-commie officials infesting the executive branch, including the NLRB, the unions actually have a chance of getting a favorable ruling from NLRB. In which case, all Boeing workers South Carolina will be forced, by decree, to join the union or, more likely, Boeing will shut down the plant.
Intersting, the guy who heads up NLRB is supposed to be vetted and approved by the US Senate. But he wasn't. He was one of the Comrade's "interim appointments," meaning the Comrade waited until congress was out of session, then made a bunch of appointments saying, "Gee, but you guys weren't in Washington and we needed someone."
So anyway, in some kind of hearings today headed by Darryl Issa, who's chief of the committee that looks into goverment corruption, Issa was talking to the NLRB guy and actually threatened to shut down the agency. I really don't know enough about it, but I thought that was neat. And rather funny. Just the look of surprise on the NLRB guy's face. Like, "Who? Me? A power-grabbing marxist apparatchik? Where do you get that idea?"
Keep up the good work, folks, it's working.
Save the Republic.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
And who guards the guards?
Right in the middle of paying work so this will be brief. I really wanted to write about the debate among the Republicans running in the New Hampshire primary, but I'll save that for later.
What caught my attention was a couple things. both related to the Comrade's Justice Dept. -- that's Eric Holder in charge, for those who don't keep track of these things. Eric Holder, who comes from a law firm that defended muslim terrorists. Eric Holder, who thought it was OK for the New Black Panthers to terrorize white people and prevent them from entering a polling place in Philadelphia. Eric Holder, who's proven to be an all-round, all-purpose, knee-jerk butthead incapable of rational thought.
Anyway, in an incident that was leaked by people inside the DoJ, it seems that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms -- yes, those fine folks who torched David Koresh and the compound in Waco, Texas a decade ago -- the BATF hatched this terrific idea to try to identify Mexican drug lords.
The plan was simple: Let's sell the Mexican drug gangs 4,700 high-powered automatic rifles, equipped with serial numbers, so that we can track their movements and see where they end up. Yes. The BATF actually has a guy on tape, an agent for the Mexican drug gangs, buying these weapons in the USA, and with the BATF's blessings.
And one of these weapons was used to kill US border guard Brian Terry. So I guess they were able to find out where it went.
And the thing is, the BATF hasn't been able to track too many other of these weapons. They're just at work in Mexico, and possibly along our southern border, protecting the Mexican drug traffic.
And the Comrade had the nerve to suggest that it's US gun manufacturers and dealers who are responsible for the violence on the border for making and selling guns to Mexican gangs.
Yeah, right. Who is it exactly who's selling these weapons to the Mexican drug gangs?
In a separate story, the FBI is giving itself more powers to snoop into your garbage, through databases of all kinds and everyplace else to gather information about US citizens, among others. They're relaxing the rules for wiretaps and don't even need to ask for permission or open a file. FBI agents can just riffle through any old documents they want -- and not necessarily your documents, but any information that might include records of interaction with you.
Because terrorist cells can be small and hunting them down is more and more complex.
So on the one hand, we have DoJ selling really dangerous weapons to really dangerous people; and on the other, these same stupid blockheads have leave to violate your privacy any old time they want for any old reason they can fabricate.
What the hell's wrong with this picture?
We need to dump this regime ASAP. They're armed and dangerous. This is a truly frightening slippery slope.
Save the Republic.
What caught my attention was a couple things. both related to the Comrade's Justice Dept. -- that's Eric Holder in charge, for those who don't keep track of these things. Eric Holder, who comes from a law firm that defended muslim terrorists. Eric Holder, who thought it was OK for the New Black Panthers to terrorize white people and prevent them from entering a polling place in Philadelphia. Eric Holder, who's proven to be an all-round, all-purpose, knee-jerk butthead incapable of rational thought.
Anyway, in an incident that was leaked by people inside the DoJ, it seems that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms -- yes, those fine folks who torched David Koresh and the compound in Waco, Texas a decade ago -- the BATF hatched this terrific idea to try to identify Mexican drug lords.
The plan was simple: Let's sell the Mexican drug gangs 4,700 high-powered automatic rifles, equipped with serial numbers, so that we can track their movements and see where they end up. Yes. The BATF actually has a guy on tape, an agent for the Mexican drug gangs, buying these weapons in the USA, and with the BATF's blessings.
And one of these weapons was used to kill US border guard Brian Terry. So I guess they were able to find out where it went.
And the thing is, the BATF hasn't been able to track too many other of these weapons. They're just at work in Mexico, and possibly along our southern border, protecting the Mexican drug traffic.
And the Comrade had the nerve to suggest that it's US gun manufacturers and dealers who are responsible for the violence on the border for making and selling guns to Mexican gangs.
Yeah, right. Who is it exactly who's selling these weapons to the Mexican drug gangs?
In a separate story, the FBI is giving itself more powers to snoop into your garbage, through databases of all kinds and everyplace else to gather information about US citizens, among others. They're relaxing the rules for wiretaps and don't even need to ask for permission or open a file. FBI agents can just riffle through any old documents they want -- and not necessarily your documents, but any information that might include records of interaction with you.
Because terrorist cells can be small and hunting them down is more and more complex.
So on the one hand, we have DoJ selling really dangerous weapons to really dangerous people; and on the other, these same stupid blockheads have leave to violate your privacy any old time they want for any old reason they can fabricate.
What the hell's wrong with this picture?
We need to dump this regime ASAP. They're armed and dangerous. This is a truly frightening slippery slope.
Save the Republic.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Washington DC: Hollywood, for ugly people
I think the whole "Anthony's Weiner" issue -- as Mark Steyn calls it -- is stupid and rather pathetic.
One pundit or another many years ago described Washington, DC, as "Hollywood, for ugly people." Yeah. In more ways than one.
So many different ways to look at this. And it's not just Weiner. There was another NY House member who wasn't in office two weeks before he was advertising himself online, naked to the waist, looking for dates. He was also married. And a Republican. The recent special election in Upstate New York was to replace that clown, who resigned. I don't even remember his name. He wasn't around long enough.
Please help me to understand. Is it like, "I can't wait until I get elected so I can display all my private parts on the Internet." Is that it? What did Weiner's campaign posters look like? I can just imagine.
Are these guy just having a hard time spending two or three days at a time away from their wives? How neurotic can you get? It's like those people with cell phones surgically attached to their ears, permanently tethered and stroked and reassured by people who apparently love them.
I mean, you can't go to the store by yourself? Nobody will hurt you. ('Course, who am I to say? They could be in the FBI Witness Protection Program.)
And then we have the grandaddy of all the public sex scandals: Bill Can't-keep-it-zipped Clinton. He wasn't even away from his wife. He was on the phone with other government authorities and such while ol' Monica was on her knees under his desk.
And note, I said "public" scandals. Because apparently this is nothing new. It's just that in the past, the press wouldn't talk about it. Like the sainted John Kennedy was supposed to be sneaking a German whore and known KGB double agent into the White House for occasional romps. The Secret Service has claimed the whole situation gave them nightmares. It seems JFK liked flirting with death and danger.
And where was Jackie? Trying to match the upholstery to the the wallpaper?
And Weiner is not resigning. Gee golly, he's sorry. He did a dumb thing. We'll have to leave it up to the Hassids and others in his district to decide how long Weiner remains in congress.
I also suspect there's more than a hint of some kind of exhibitionism driving this. I mean, if Weiner truly didn't want the world to know it was him, one of the dumbest things he did was to say he wasn't sure if the photo was of him or not. Don't know if you've seen the photo, but imagine a camera is just under your chin and pointed down at your underwear. And thank heavens he is wearing underwear.
I couldn't figure out how someone could take a photo like that without Weiner knowing about it. I mean, what did the photographer do, sneak in while he was sleeping? Or maybe Weiner just plays some peculiar games with his budds, like that one very strange congresscritter -- also from the East Coast, also married, also resigned, and I don't remember his name -- who used to have "tickle fights" with his male staff during slumber parties in his congressional office. Good grief. Where do these people come from?
But let's look at the Bigger Picture.
These are the guys who are making the rules for the rest of us. And not rules like, "Don't drive 85 mph on the side streets." Rules like, "You will be fined and imprisoned if you refuse to change your light bulbs." They want to send people in to inspect the "green-ness" of our houses before we put them up for sale. Do you want these people in your house?
Any wonder why things are so screwed up? Literally.
What's next? Maybe we'll all be compelled to send snaps of our naked selves to our Twitter pals. And actually, I think Twitter itself is pretty stupid. No offense, but frankly, I don't care what you're doing right now.
Save the Republic.
One pundit or another many years ago described Washington, DC, as "Hollywood, for ugly people." Yeah. In more ways than one.
So many different ways to look at this. And it's not just Weiner. There was another NY House member who wasn't in office two weeks before he was advertising himself online, naked to the waist, looking for dates. He was also married. And a Republican. The recent special election in Upstate New York was to replace that clown, who resigned. I don't even remember his name. He wasn't around long enough.
Please help me to understand. Is it like, "I can't wait until I get elected so I can display all my private parts on the Internet." Is that it? What did Weiner's campaign posters look like? I can just imagine.
Are these guy just having a hard time spending two or three days at a time away from their wives? How neurotic can you get? It's like those people with cell phones surgically attached to their ears, permanently tethered and stroked and reassured by people who apparently love them.
I mean, you can't go to the store by yourself? Nobody will hurt you. ('Course, who am I to say? They could be in the FBI Witness Protection Program.)
And then we have the grandaddy of all the public sex scandals: Bill Can't-keep-it-zipped Clinton. He wasn't even away from his wife. He was on the phone with other government authorities and such while ol' Monica was on her knees under his desk.
And note, I said "public" scandals. Because apparently this is nothing new. It's just that in the past, the press wouldn't talk about it. Like the sainted John Kennedy was supposed to be sneaking a German whore and known KGB double agent into the White House for occasional romps. The Secret Service has claimed the whole situation gave them nightmares. It seems JFK liked flirting with death and danger.
And where was Jackie? Trying to match the upholstery to the the wallpaper?
And Weiner is not resigning. Gee golly, he's sorry. He did a dumb thing. We'll have to leave it up to the Hassids and others in his district to decide how long Weiner remains in congress.
I also suspect there's more than a hint of some kind of exhibitionism driving this. I mean, if Weiner truly didn't want the world to know it was him, one of the dumbest things he did was to say he wasn't sure if the photo was of him or not. Don't know if you've seen the photo, but imagine a camera is just under your chin and pointed down at your underwear. And thank heavens he is wearing underwear.
I couldn't figure out how someone could take a photo like that without Weiner knowing about it. I mean, what did the photographer do, sneak in while he was sleeping? Or maybe Weiner just plays some peculiar games with his budds, like that one very strange congresscritter -- also from the East Coast, also married, also resigned, and I don't remember his name -- who used to have "tickle fights" with his male staff during slumber parties in his congressional office. Good grief. Where do these people come from?
But let's look at the Bigger Picture.
These are the guys who are making the rules for the rest of us. And not rules like, "Don't drive 85 mph on the side streets." Rules like, "You will be fined and imprisoned if you refuse to change your light bulbs." They want to send people in to inspect the "green-ness" of our houses before we put them up for sale. Do you want these people in your house?
Any wonder why things are so screwed up? Literally.
What's next? Maybe we'll all be compelled to send snaps of our naked selves to our Twitter pals. And actually, I think Twitter itself is pretty stupid. No offense, but frankly, I don't care what you're doing right now.
Save the Republic.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Yeah, let Geithner do it
Haven't written much about the debt ceiling. That's basically the credit limit for the USA. Right now, we've hit the limit set by congress last year. That means the USA can't borrow anymore money until congress approves it.
The USA already owes like $14 TRILLION dollars. That's more money than you or I can even imagine. And that's as much as the USA can borrow -- without the consent of congress to raise the credit limit in order to borrow more.
Congress is having a lot of trouble with this. At least the Republicans are. Many of them were elected to put the brakes on government spending and expansion.
On the other hand, as the democrats see it, the only problem with raising the debt ceiling is that Republicans don't want to do it.
So the USA was supposed to run out of money to pay its bills in the middle of May. US Treasurer Tom Geithner promised the nation would collapse. We'd lose our debt rating (we are anyway), and of course all of our creditors would 1.) demand immediate payment (ha-ha on that one) and 2.) raise interest rates on the TRILLIONS we already owe. It would be a nightmare!
John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Reps, suggested that for every extra dollar allowed in a new, expanded debt ceiling, that the feds would cut spending. Like if the USA borrowed $1 TRILLION more, they'd have to cut $1 TRILLION from the existing budget.
OMG! Dems have their panties all in a twist over that one. I mean, good grief! Who won't get paid off? They'll lose all those votes! What a freakin' disaster!
(You realize, of course, that most democrats are so ignorant of economics it's almost unbelievable. I mean, don't they even do their own grocery shopping? Can you imagine what their own credit is like? "Obama gon' pay my mortgage! Obama gon' buy my gas!")
If/When any budgetary measure passes the House of Reps, it gets stalled in the senate, while Harry Reid diddles around, thumbing through old photos of his days at the Cowboy Poetry Festival and bones up on Spanish for the next election. Nothing happens. Everything is delayed. Then the bill fails.
And the dems say this is all the fault of Republicans. As a matter of fact, it's George W. Bush's fault. Yeah, sure. Since the Comrade has quadrupled the US budget in the 2.5 years he's been in office, that's a hard argument to make, but then we're dealing with people who live in a dream world anyway, aren't we?
So there's no agreement about what to do with the debt ceiling. And now Tim Geithner apparently went through the White House and other government offices, turning the furniture upside down and shaking out any loose change he could find. So now, miraculously, the USA is able to pay its bills up to August 2nd.
And Michele Bachman, among others, points out the USA constantly has a stream of revenue coming in. I mean, Dear Reader, look at your paycheck. See all that withholding? Goes straight to Uncle Sam. Non-stop. All year-round. So the feds have money coming in without borrowing more.
Geithner would have enough in the Treasury to cut the checks to Red China and other debtors, with something left over for all the silly socialist crap -- the EPA salaries, double-dipping postal worker pensions, Air Force jets operated as private livery, and yeah -- private livery. More big limos in this regime than ever before.
So without raising the debt limit, Geithner will be forced to make some choices. Will he make a payment on the billions of interest the USA owes on its loans? Or will he cut a check for his budds -- former staff of Goldman Sachs -- who infest the Comrade's czar army?
What do you think? Who do you think will be paid? On the one hand, the nation collpases like it's never collapesed before. On the other, the assholes in the administration have to do without a few perks -- or, even better, get shut down.
What do you prefer? How do you think Geithner will order priorities? Is he an irresponsible asshole and puppet of the Comrade, or does he really know how to balance a checkbook?
In either case, unless congress acts -- and the democrats ARE NOT willing to do a damn thing about this -- Tim Geithner will decide the nation's priorities -- who gets paid and who doesn't.
And the dems can continue to wander around in their little fog going, "Ain't my fault."
I hope they don't raise the debt ceiling. If the situation is as dire as Geithner reports -- and the man is a really monstrous liar, I mean, let's face it -- this may be the only way to control federal spending.
If it works, let's do it -- or not do it. Let's not extend the fed's credit. The feds have proven they can't handle credit. They're like a bunch of 12-year-olds with Daddy's Visa card. And not a clue that eventually it all has to be paid back -- with interest.
.
Save the Republic
The USA already owes like $14 TRILLION dollars. That's more money than you or I can even imagine. And that's as much as the USA can borrow -- without the consent of congress to raise the credit limit in order to borrow more.
Congress is having a lot of trouble with this. At least the Republicans are. Many of them were elected to put the brakes on government spending and expansion.
On the other hand, as the democrats see it, the only problem with raising the debt ceiling is that Republicans don't want to do it.
So the USA was supposed to run out of money to pay its bills in the middle of May. US Treasurer Tom Geithner promised the nation would collapse. We'd lose our debt rating (we are anyway), and of course all of our creditors would 1.) demand immediate payment (ha-ha on that one) and 2.) raise interest rates on the TRILLIONS we already owe. It would be a nightmare!
John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Reps, suggested that for every extra dollar allowed in a new, expanded debt ceiling, that the feds would cut spending. Like if the USA borrowed $1 TRILLION more, they'd have to cut $1 TRILLION from the existing budget.
OMG! Dems have their panties all in a twist over that one. I mean, good grief! Who won't get paid off? They'll lose all those votes! What a freakin' disaster!
(You realize, of course, that most democrats are so ignorant of economics it's almost unbelievable. I mean, don't they even do their own grocery shopping? Can you imagine what their own credit is like? "Obama gon' pay my mortgage! Obama gon' buy my gas!")
If/When any budgetary measure passes the House of Reps, it gets stalled in the senate, while Harry Reid diddles around, thumbing through old photos of his days at the Cowboy Poetry Festival and bones up on Spanish for the next election. Nothing happens. Everything is delayed. Then the bill fails.
And the dems say this is all the fault of Republicans. As a matter of fact, it's George W. Bush's fault. Yeah, sure. Since the Comrade has quadrupled the US budget in the 2.5 years he's been in office, that's a hard argument to make, but then we're dealing with people who live in a dream world anyway, aren't we?
So there's no agreement about what to do with the debt ceiling. And now Tim Geithner apparently went through the White House and other government offices, turning the furniture upside down and shaking out any loose change he could find. So now, miraculously, the USA is able to pay its bills up to August 2nd.
And Michele Bachman, among others, points out the USA constantly has a stream of revenue coming in. I mean, Dear Reader, look at your paycheck. See all that withholding? Goes straight to Uncle Sam. Non-stop. All year-round. So the feds have money coming in without borrowing more.
Geithner would have enough in the Treasury to cut the checks to Red China and other debtors, with something left over for all the silly socialist crap -- the EPA salaries, double-dipping postal worker pensions, Air Force jets operated as private livery, and yeah -- private livery. More big limos in this regime than ever before.
So without raising the debt limit, Geithner will be forced to make some choices. Will he make a payment on the billions of interest the USA owes on its loans? Or will he cut a check for his budds -- former staff of Goldman Sachs -- who infest the Comrade's czar army?
What do you think? Who do you think will be paid? On the one hand, the nation collpases like it's never collapesed before. On the other, the assholes in the administration have to do without a few perks -- or, even better, get shut down.
What do you prefer? How do you think Geithner will order priorities? Is he an irresponsible asshole and puppet of the Comrade, or does he really know how to balance a checkbook?
In either case, unless congress acts -- and the democrats ARE NOT willing to do a damn thing about this -- Tim Geithner will decide the nation's priorities -- who gets paid and who doesn't.
And the dems can continue to wander around in their little fog going, "Ain't my fault."
I hope they don't raise the debt ceiling. If the situation is as dire as Geithner reports -- and the man is a really monstrous liar, I mean, let's face it -- this may be the only way to control federal spending.
If it works, let's do it -- or not do it. Let's not extend the fed's credit. The feds have proven they can't handle credit. They're like a bunch of 12-year-olds with Daddy's Visa card. And not a clue that eventually it all has to be paid back -- with interest.
.
Save the Republic
Things break and you can't fix them
AFter mentioning Detroit in my last blog, I looked up a bunch of stuff about Detroit (looking for a certain review that I never did find), including lots of photos from a book that came out a while back called Ruins of Detroit, by Yves Marchand. Just Google it. It's a nightmare.
I look at the wreck of Detroit and conjure the wreck of this whole nation. And there's no way around it, it's the fault of those who believe in Big Government, Big Unions with Big Benefits, Big Taxes.
Listened to the Medicare debate between Paul Ryan and something-or-other Van Hollen. One of Pazzo Pelosi's lapdogs. Very different points of view. Van Hollen says that if there is a shortfall in Medicare, the government must collect more revenue -- raise taxes.
When you raise taxes, you often get LESS revenue, because you take away the ability of individual producers -- corporate or otherwise -- to make any money. You take away their ability to make money and you also take away their willingness to make money. No one wants to work if you can't keep what you earn. That's called "slavery."
That's why times like these are referred as "depressions." No hope. No future. No point in doing much of anything. You spend most of your time figuring out where your next meal is coming from. The democrats just don't get that. They tie your hands and then they can't figure out why you're not working. They'll likely kick you a few times, bang your head against the wall to get you restarted.
So they drive around in limos and make very stupid and irrelevant speeches and feel good about themselves. (Like Slappy Biden, cheering on the guy, "Hey, stand up! Let us see you!" to a guy in a wheelchair. Typical of Slappy. What a freaking dolt.)
THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T PRODUCE OR CREATE ANYTHING. Everything the government "owns" it takes from citizens. Government doesn't have any factories. Doesn't operate any for-profit stores. Doesn't generate any income at all. It has no means to do so. It's an expense, not an investment.
All government does is make laws and spend money. That's it.
All the little knuckleheads in college right now are being spoon-fed this crap that "profits are bad." Business is greedy and bad. Therefore, their marxist professors (who've never worked in the private sector or met a payroll) believe that you've got to have government to run everything not-for-profit. That was one of the big arguments in favor of Obamacare -- take away the profits from the insurance companies and you'd save tons of money. Like government doesn't cost anything? Like the government has some source of income -- apart from collecting taxes -- to fund healthcare? What bullshit. Tell me, please, where ELSE does the government get any money, except from us?
Profits are the grease that inspires productivity. Profits fund growth. Profits are what's left over after all the bills are paid. For most people, it means you can sleep instead of staring at the ceiling all night, trying to think how to pay your mortgage. It means you can take a day off work or even a vacation. Most businesses re-invest most of their profits into expansion and growth. Profits are joyful.
If you have no profits, you have depression. If you have no profits, eventually you lose your existing assets, too, because things break -- like the buildings in Detroit -- and you can't afford to fix or replace them. You just scrape along, running on less and less, until there's nothing left but the ruins.
You like living on 50-cents-a-box macaroni and cheese? (Like you could afford cheese. What am I thinking?)
Get used to it.
Or.... dump these socialist jerks and...
Save the Republic
I look at the wreck of Detroit and conjure the wreck of this whole nation. And there's no way around it, it's the fault of those who believe in Big Government, Big Unions with Big Benefits, Big Taxes.
Listened to the Medicare debate between Paul Ryan and something-or-other Van Hollen. One of Pazzo Pelosi's lapdogs. Very different points of view. Van Hollen says that if there is a shortfall in Medicare, the government must collect more revenue -- raise taxes.
When you raise taxes, you often get LESS revenue, because you take away the ability of individual producers -- corporate or otherwise -- to make any money. You take away their ability to make money and you also take away their willingness to make money. No one wants to work if you can't keep what you earn. That's called "slavery."
That's why times like these are referred as "depressions." No hope. No future. No point in doing much of anything. You spend most of your time figuring out where your next meal is coming from. The democrats just don't get that. They tie your hands and then they can't figure out why you're not working. They'll likely kick you a few times, bang your head against the wall to get you restarted.
So they drive around in limos and make very stupid and irrelevant speeches and feel good about themselves. (Like Slappy Biden, cheering on the guy, "Hey, stand up! Let us see you!" to a guy in a wheelchair. Typical of Slappy. What a freaking dolt.)
THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T PRODUCE OR CREATE ANYTHING. Everything the government "owns" it takes from citizens. Government doesn't have any factories. Doesn't operate any for-profit stores. Doesn't generate any income at all. It has no means to do so. It's an expense, not an investment.
All government does is make laws and spend money. That's it.
All the little knuckleheads in college right now are being spoon-fed this crap that "profits are bad." Business is greedy and bad. Therefore, their marxist professors (who've never worked in the private sector or met a payroll) believe that you've got to have government to run everything not-for-profit. That was one of the big arguments in favor of Obamacare -- take away the profits from the insurance companies and you'd save tons of money. Like government doesn't cost anything? Like the government has some source of income -- apart from collecting taxes -- to fund healthcare? What bullshit. Tell me, please, where ELSE does the government get any money, except from us?
Profits are the grease that inspires productivity. Profits fund growth. Profits are what's left over after all the bills are paid. For most people, it means you can sleep instead of staring at the ceiling all night, trying to think how to pay your mortgage. It means you can take a day off work or even a vacation. Most businesses re-invest most of their profits into expansion and growth. Profits are joyful.
If you have no profits, you have depression. If you have no profits, eventually you lose your existing assets, too, because things break -- like the buildings in Detroit -- and you can't afford to fix or replace them. You just scrape along, running on less and less, until there's nothing left but the ruins.
You like living on 50-cents-a-box macaroni and cheese? (Like you could afford cheese. What am I thinking?)
Get used to it.
Or.... dump these socialist jerks and...
Save the Republic
Illinois hits new political low - bet you didn't think it was even possible
Well, Illinois wins once again on the race to bottom -- seeing which state can be the most foul and dictatorial.
The state has a democratic majority in the legislature, and just gerrymandered out FIVE congressional districts that are held by Republicans.
The bullshit just never stops in this state -- even with a $45 billion deficit and businesses fleeing the state with stupid and destructive tax hikes.
One of the problems is butthead Patrick Quinn, who miraculously survived as governor in the last election. He gained office only because Blagojovich was arrested for bare-assed corruption -- trying to "sell" what had been the Comrade's seat in the U.S. Senate.
How would you like to live in this state? You just get shit shoved down your throat constantly. Think the Comrade in your face all the time, no let up, all the time, more taxes, more corruption. Nothing but lies, ever, always.
I'm only glad I don't live in Chicago -- not with asshole Ram Emanual the new mayor.
Illinois promises to become the nation's socialist shit-hole. It getting very close now.
And with any voice of dissent suffocated by ruthless gerrymandering, which I understand was done with a computer -- adding a digital precision to the "off with their heads" approach to non-democrats.
No decency here. No fairness. No respect even for democracy. Just power-hungry thugs. And they don't even hide it. That's "The Chicago Way."
Where's Al Capone when you need him? He was saintly compared to these jag-offs.
But you see, these assholes are desperate for power -- and they are also such a bunch of failures when it comes to delivering a livable state that they've got to pound heads and steal elections, ignore citizens and the US Constitution just to keep their fucking little jobs so they can keep on screwing the public.
You know how pathetic this is?
There's a lot stuff out about Detroit -- now one-third its original size, bulldozing empty and unwanted housing because who the hell wants to live there anymore. This is where Chicago and Illinois are headed.
Who do these assholes think they're kidding. They can't fun from reality -- but all the rest of us can leave this state. And we will.
Save the Republic.
The state has a democratic majority in the legislature, and just gerrymandered out FIVE congressional districts that are held by Republicans.
The bullshit just never stops in this state -- even with a $45 billion deficit and businesses fleeing the state with stupid and destructive tax hikes.
One of the problems is butthead Patrick Quinn, who miraculously survived as governor in the last election. He gained office only because Blagojovich was arrested for bare-assed corruption -- trying to "sell" what had been the Comrade's seat in the U.S. Senate.
How would you like to live in this state? You just get shit shoved down your throat constantly. Think the Comrade in your face all the time, no let up, all the time, more taxes, more corruption. Nothing but lies, ever, always.
I'm only glad I don't live in Chicago -- not with asshole Ram Emanual the new mayor.
Illinois promises to become the nation's socialist shit-hole. It getting very close now.
And with any voice of dissent suffocated by ruthless gerrymandering, which I understand was done with a computer -- adding a digital precision to the "off with their heads" approach to non-democrats.
No decency here. No fairness. No respect even for democracy. Just power-hungry thugs. And they don't even hide it. That's "The Chicago Way."
Where's Al Capone when you need him? He was saintly compared to these jag-offs.
But you see, these assholes are desperate for power -- and they are also such a bunch of failures when it comes to delivering a livable state that they've got to pound heads and steal elections, ignore citizens and the US Constitution just to keep their fucking little jobs so they can keep on screwing the public.
You know how pathetic this is?
There's a lot stuff out about Detroit -- now one-third its original size, bulldozing empty and unwanted housing because who the hell wants to live there anymore. This is where Chicago and Illinois are headed.
Who do these assholes think they're kidding. They can't fun from reality -- but all the rest of us can leave this state. And we will.
Save the Republic.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Socialized medicine, the historical perspective
Look, I have no time for this, so I'll try to make it quick.
When I was in college, a history professor explained the value of history through this parable:
So here's the thing: although nearly every nation in the west has toyed with socialized medicine, they still haven't seemed to learn the lessons to be had from it. Like in Canada -- where it's on its way out just through practice and bending the original rules to make it work, bending into a semi-capitalist operation. Same in France, where people have to pay more and more co-pays and such, for just about every medical service, to keep their "free" system. Many other nations have found that socialized medicine has mainly inspired a huge black market for health care. Etc etc.
And what I find funny -- over the last couple days, one or another Republican criticized the dems for blowing off Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal without coming up with a viable alternative.
But the dems do have a viable alternative -- Obamacare cuts $500 million from Medicare to pay, apparently, for the sports injuries and careless self-abuse perpetrated by the young.
So basically, the Obamacare solution -- through the Death Panels -- puts the elderly on an ice floe and ships them off to sea. I mean, they have nothing to contribute anymore, right?
And the toothless young -- through their ignorance and sense of invincibility -- will be next.
That's it in a nutshell.
Save the Republic.
When I was in college, a history professor explained the value of history through this parable:
An eskimo couple married, and one of their elderly grandmothers was living with them. She was very old and her teeth started falling out, making it impossible for her to eat anything. As was the custom, the younger couple wished her well, then put her on an ice floe and shipped her off to sea.
So then the young couple had a baby. It had no teeth. It couldn't eat -- certainly couldn't chew on whale blubber. So they put the baby on an ice floe and shipped if off to sea.
So here's the thing: although nearly every nation in the west has toyed with socialized medicine, they still haven't seemed to learn the lessons to be had from it. Like in Canada -- where it's on its way out just through practice and bending the original rules to make it work, bending into a semi-capitalist operation. Same in France, where people have to pay more and more co-pays and such, for just about every medical service, to keep their "free" system. Many other nations have found that socialized medicine has mainly inspired a huge black market for health care. Etc etc.
And what I find funny -- over the last couple days, one or another Republican criticized the dems for blowing off Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal without coming up with a viable alternative.
But the dems do have a viable alternative -- Obamacare cuts $500 million from Medicare to pay, apparently, for the sports injuries and careless self-abuse perpetrated by the young.
So basically, the Obamacare solution -- through the Death Panels -- puts the elderly on an ice floe and ships them off to sea. I mean, they have nothing to contribute anymore, right?
And the toothless young -- through their ignorance and sense of invincibility -- will be next.
That's it in a nutshell.
Save the Republic.
Comrade: "I've done nothing..."
I find it interesting that -- what's that guy's name, the one who apparently set Robert Gibb up as a role model, and now stutters and bumbles around like a dolt, as though that's the way press secretaries are supposed to act... What's his name? Jay Carney(barker?) He's in a very uncomfortable position.
Apparently Mitt Romney, among others, has been pointing out that even if the Comrade didn't create the recession, he has done everything in his power to extend it. Not a particularly subtle observation. I think the whole country knows that. But now this Jay Carneybarker character has to stand up in front of news reporters and try to explain exactly why it is that the Comrade has had absolutely nothing to do with this economic disaster.
So short and sweet, here's the question: If the Comrade bears no responsibility for all this socialist bullshit that is collapsing the greatest economic powerhouse the human race has ever known -- then exactly what the hell has the Comrade been doing for the last few years?
Well, he plays golf. He's taken a couple global family vacations. Hmmm.... what else?
Save the Republic
Apparently Mitt Romney, among others, has been pointing out that even if the Comrade didn't create the recession, he has done everything in his power to extend it. Not a particularly subtle observation. I think the whole country knows that. But now this Jay Carneybarker character has to stand up in front of news reporters and try to explain exactly why it is that the Comrade has had absolutely nothing to do with this economic disaster.
So short and sweet, here's the question: If the Comrade bears no responsibility for all this socialist bullshit that is collapsing the greatest economic powerhouse the human race has ever known -- then exactly what the hell has the Comrade been doing for the last few years?
Well, he plays golf. He's taken a couple global family vacations. Hmmm.... what else?
Save the Republic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)