Wednesday, March 28, 2012

A bunch more bad choices from the executive branch

Apparently the EPA has raised the bar so high on building coal-powered electrical plants that none will be etablished any time soon. Too bad, because at the same time, the EPA is forcing the shutdown of lots of existing coal-powered electrical plants.

Oh dear. Where, oh, where will we find the energy to propel our little Chevy Volts?

In addition, it seems that while the Comrade was in some foreign country -- not sure where he is, but do hope he stays there -- he got caught promising Russia's Medvedev that he will sell out US missile defense just as soon as he [the Comrade] wins the November election. The Comrade says he'll have "more flexibility" after the election.

Yeah, up until then, he's got to keep his lies consistent and his false facade in place in order to get people to vote for him. If they knew the truth....

Apparently the Comrade is licking his chops at the thought of a lame duck term, when he'll be able to order all US troops back home to stand guard over all of us unruly citizens while he [the Comrade] shoves even more marxist crap down our throats. See, he won't have to worry about being re-elected. Like his marxist bud, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, perhaps the Comrade will somehow even "persuade" congress to suspend all elections entirely and just obey his god-like diktats.

He really is a hideous person, know what I mean? I don't find him at all charming or in any way attractive. And I must question the perception and judgment of anyone who does.

So just as soon as donkeys fly -- that is, after the Comrade wins a second term -- we can look forward to being rendered entirely defenselss, just a bunch of happy slaves, sittin' on the porch of an evening (after sundown, after picking cotton all day), strumming our banjos and singing the praises of Ol' Marse Barry.

In your dreams, buddy. In your dreams. We know you now. And we arent' all as stupid as you are.

Save the Republic.

Supremes take up socialized medicine

Big day today. The Supreme Court heard arguments pro and con on the socialized medcine bill. By several accounts, it didn't go well for the feds.

Apparently at one point, Justice Scalia questioned the way the feds (and dems) define the "health care market." See, they say everyone needs health care at some time or another, and if people don't have insurance and can't/won't pay for the care/insurance themselves, then the rest of the country has to pay for it. So, somehow that means that every US citizen is a member of the "health care market" and needs to be regulated, pushed around, robbed, browbeaten, and generally treated like peon laborers and slaves to the state. All for the privilege of waiting in long, long lines for substandard health care and/or to be bundled up and cast upon an ice floe in our senior years.

So Scalia asked, "What about food? Don't we all need food? So does that mean the government can mandate that you buy broccoli?"

Good point. Of course, the guy from the feds said, "No, no. That's a completely different thing."

Yeah? Why? I didn't hear an answer. And I don't see the distinction.

I guarantee, if this crappy law is not struck down or repealed or done away with somehow, we'll all be eating broccoli or whatever kind of garbage this week's popular health freak feels is beneficial. (Even though, personally, I love broccoli... with lots of butter and salt.)

And we'll all have to buy electric cars to further support the UAW, I suppose. The UAW, who apparently truly are little obedient slaves to the state and happy as pigs in poop. They're an example for us all, apparently. (So I guess we should all go out and beat up and harrass people who don't want to pay us dues every month.)

By the way, don't the UAW and SEIU members share the common need for health care? Yet they've been exempted from this stupid law -- which exemption is, by the way, another constitutional violation, but who's counting? I suppose they won't have to eat the broccoli, either. 

Then there's also the fact that no one -- no doctors, no hospitals -- have to provide you with free health care... EXCEPT THAT THE GOVERNMENT MANDATES THAT.

So, you see, the government creates an unsustainable social and financial problem, then creates an ever larger social and financial problem to "solve" the first problem. Meanwhile, the government seizes control of everyone's life. Because they know what's good for us better than we do, right?

Is there something here I'm just not understanding? Like what, exactly, makes fascists tick? I mean why is that some people just can't stand to let other people alone? Sounds like some kind of monumental ego problem. Perhaps the dems and other pro-socialists really do NEED to see a doctor.

Save the Republic.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Health care rationing vs. "pre-existing conditions"

So today apparently is the anniversay of the day the dems bribed and extorted enough votes in the Senate to shove socialized medicine down our throats.

Don't expect a cheer. Fingers crossed the Supremes will strike it down. Failing that, the new Republican president and Republicn majorities in both houses this November will dump this piece of crap legislation.

But apparently the Comrade and his peeps have got a TV ad out now showing a bunch of pathetic people who were denied insurance covered due to "pre-existing conditions" etc.

Well -- what the hell is the difference between that and rationing?

Want to know the difference? It's in who gets to decide.

With socialized medicine, the government decides who's covered, based largely on cost and some weird, marxist equation about your "value to society." 

With private insurance -- or even paying your own expenses -- you get to choose.

Which do you prefer?

The marxist ad shows a baby who was born with birth defects, who was allegeldy denied private coverage due to "pre-existing conditions."

Give socialized medicine a few years, and that baby will be more or less "left on a hillside" to die, as the ancient Greeks used to handle these kinds of things.

I mean, look at socialized medicine all around the world. And take a look at the blog here from February 7, "The Tragedy of Socialized Medicine." The marching orders already are that if somone over 70 years old has a stroke, the government-required treatment is "comfort care." That is, wrap them in a blanket and keep them on a drip until they die.

Sound good to you?

So there's a reason I'm not celebrating this tragic anniversay. And good reasons why no one should.

And the TV ad is a major demonstration of the shortsighted hyprocrisy of the left.

Save the Republic.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Comrade blames Fox for faltering popularity

Just saw something on Huffington Post about a book about the Comrade by a guy named David Corn or something like that.

I mean, really, are the dems doing it on purpose? The Comrade has a public relations guy named Fluff, a spokesman named Loo, another spokesman named Carney, some weird nympho whining about her "right" to free birth control pills named Fluke (but apparently it rhymes with f**k.) And now a guy named Corn to try to explain away all the Comrade's faiulres and shortcomings.

I mean, really, are they doing this on purpose? How are we supposed to take these people seriously?

At any rate, it seems that the Comrade, in an unguarded and intimate moment with his biographer, intimated that his loss of public support is all because of Fox News. Oh dear. Sigh. The way those pitiless bastards have blackened his name.

Though Fox isn't perfect -- and doesn't claim to be "objective," but rather, "balanced," I find it refreshing to find some segment of the media that's not marching in lockstep to Ed Schultz or Chris Matthews goofy little drum.

CBS, ABC, NBC, even CNN (let's not forget that silly twit who made a fool of herself at an anti-socialized medicine rally in Chicago) MSNBC... am I leaving anyone out? They all sort of bounce along regurgitating White House press releases with the precision and mindlessness of those crazy Iranian jihadists who, during parades, "jump down, turn around, pick a bale of... something." All as the Comrade, or Fluff, or Loo, or Jay Carneybarker or any of those pathetic idiots snaps their fingers.

You know what? If you've been out of a job for 3.5 years, were compelled to abandon your home in foreclosure, can't afford to fill your gas tank or buy groceries, your 30-year-old son with a Ph.D is begging pennies and beating tomtoms in Zucotti Park, and your 14-year-old daughter is screwing anything that moves through the grace of free birth control distributed without your consent or even knowledge -- you don't need Fox News to suggest that maybe something ain't quite right.

I mean, really.

Never fails to amaze me -- these blockheads actually, honestly, deeply believe we're all completely blind and stupid. Do we live on the same planet? Or is it just that the Comrade's range of vision stops at the back of his chauffeur's head?

I've actually been avoiding listening to the news lately -- or anything Washington-related -- because the idiotic statements coming from 1.) the White House; 2.) Pazzo Pelosi's pampered-yet-backwards offspring; 3.) Pazzo herself; 4.) Brain-dead Harry Reid... etc. I can't stand to hear any of these blockheads even speak anymore. Everything that comes out of their mouths is so much gibberish. Or calculated to appeal to a certain set of prejudices -- and you have to really be biased to believe some of the nonsense they put out.

I worked in public relations. These people are pikers. Clumsy. No subtlety. They gave up long ago trying to formulate a logical argument. Instead, they whine. They beg. They weep. Above all, they lie. And like Goebbels (sorry for the referenced but it's true, and called Big Lie propaganda) they seem to believe that if the spin some really humongous whoppers, people will wonder if there some little truth to it. I mean, no one in their right mind, with any iota of decency, would tell such honking huge lies, would they?

They're an insult to human intelligence.

St. Paul's Cathedral in London was designed by a guy named Christopher Wren. Out front, there's a sign that says, "If you seek [Wren's] monument, look around you."

So, Comrade, if you seek the source of your increasing unpopularity -- open your sleepy eyes and look around you. Then after assessing the monumenatal damage you've visited on this nation, here's hoping you'll have the good grace to retire to Hawaii. Or Venezuela. Or Cuba. Or Egypt. Or wherever they will have you.

Save the Republic.

Monday, March 19, 2012

Is the Comrade lying? Are his lips moving?

I've said it before: Don't listen to what people say. Rather, watch what they do. Especially the president.

So the Comrade is in Oklahoma today, no doubt trying to convince people down that there he's all in favor of the Keystone Pipeline. But here's the real story:

The Nebraska EPA and everyone else approved all sections of the Keystone Pipeline from Canada. The proposal, with all approvals, impact statements, yaday-yada-yada, went to the US EPA or DOE or some b.s. agency inside the DC Beltway. Those regulators decided Nebraska needed to come up with a different route for tbe pipeline.

So the Comrade nixed the pipeline, claiming, "Hey! Ain't my fault! Nebraska needs to submit a plan!!" A second plan, butthead, after your folks nixed a perfectly good plan, and don't think we don't know it.

Now gasoline is upwards of $4.00 all across the country. This is an assault on the public from every direction -- it kills commuters whether you drive yourself of take public transportation -- which also burns fuel and fares will, of necessity rise.

How much fuel is used in producing basically ANTYHING? All costs for that go up. How much to deliver corn from Iowa to upstate New York? And a lot of corn, by the way, is being burned as ethanol, so the price of corn is absolutely ridiculous.

So suddenly the nation turned on the good ol' Comrade like a pack of snarling dogs. He still pretends that none of this is his fault. He is, as usual, blameless.

You see, as president, the Comrade does absolutely nothing. So he's not responsible for anything. He says "no" to everything.

Including domestic oil and gas exploration and development.

But it's an elction year. So Comrade Butthead has a problem. He's got to somehow convince people that he's done everything possible to improve the USA's fuel stores. While he was golfing, kissing Muslim butt, and entertaining movie stars.

"We're drilling more oil today than ever before," he says. Yeah, and that IS George Bush's fault -- Bush approved those projects before he left office, and most of the drilling on privately-owned land, not under supervision of the federal government.

In fact, a half-dozen more oil contracts were sitting on the desk in the Oval Office the day the Comrade took possession -- AND HE CANCELLED ALL OF THEM. Opting insread to dump about $5 billion down a rat-hole called Solyndra, because, you know, the guy who ran Solyndra was a big campaign donor. The Comrade owed him some public money. My money, your money. NOT THE COMRADE'S MONEY. Easy to pay people off with other peoples' money, isn't?

So Comrade Gutless-Wonder-Wannabe-Re-elected has tried his best to back-pedal his position on the Keystone Pipeline. "Go ahead with the pipeline," he says.... "Build it from Oklahoma to the Gulf Coast."

What the hell that will accomplish in the process of carrying crude from Canada? It only seems to emphasis the Comrade's total ignorance about North American geography. Wonder if he's figured out yet that the USA does not and never has included 57 states.

So as the Comrade is in Oklahoma, taking credit for the "pipeline to nowhere," the DOE or US EPA or one of those anal retentive commissariats has issued an edict that will now review oil drilling and exploration contracts on privately-held property. Where it is clearly none of their goddamn busines.

But, you get it? On the one hand, ol' Comrade Blockhead is out there flapping his jaws, trying to convince citizens he's working for them. Meanwhile, he's taken hold of that knife in our backs and is slowly twisting it in, deeper and deeper. He's blissfully unaware -- or delighted -- that we're bleeding out.

So don't even both listening to what this major league marxist liar says. Instead, watch what he does. AND VOTE FOR ANYONE ELSE THIS COMING NOVEMBER.

Save the Republic.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Good-bye Blago and good riddance

Big deal around the Chicago today, and elsewhere, about former Governor Rod Blagojovich turning himself in at a federal pen near Denver to begin his 14 year sentence.

Interesting... Blago's first trial, he got something like 5 to 7 years, and he protested that, demanded a retrial. Got one. Then got 14 years.

Think he was relying on his charm?

He's apparently self-centered and self-delusive enough to believe that he lost his first trial because his lawyers wouldn't allow him to testify in his own bealf. No doubt he was convinced that if he had been allowed to speak, the jury would have fallen in love with him and accepted his "not guilty" plea as a type of affectionate jury nullification.

Joke's on him, second trial, he talked and talked and talked and talked. And the judge gave him 14 years.

What's bizarre to me is the apparent sympathy for him. Even on Fox & Friends this morning, which showed the press mess surrounding Blago as he left for the airport -- even the Fox moderators talked about what a character Blago is. Kind of wistful about it.

The local news tonight, one reporter flew all the way to Denver with Blago on the plane.l During the flight, the x-gov held forth on the Cubs, the judicial system, etc etc. As they neared Denver, the reporter said, Blago got all kinda quiet and pensive.

Awwww.

All he did was try to sell a US Senate seat. Among other things. He wasn't a very good governor, except by Illinois standards, which means he was probably rotten and corrupt through and through like all the rest of them -- and like many people in and around the White House right now. It's the Chicago way.

Blago was so deeply entangled in machine politics that he refused to live in Springfield, the state capitol, but remained in Chicago, close to his cronies and fellow travelers, and reducing the long distance charges for those often lengthy horse-trading conversations. Like, "I've got a US Senate seat up for sale. How much you offering?"

I'm not sorry he's gone. I can only think of him as a kind of chuckleheaded psychopath. Sort of like if Ted Bundy hadn't developed a taste for coeds (and I do mean "a taste.") Blago's chickens have gone home to roost is all. He made his bed... blah-blah-blah. Good riddance.

Now if we could only get rid of Quinn and the rest of the machine cabal.

Save the Republic -- though Illinois just may be beyond redemption.

Friday, March 9, 2012

Econ. 101 - supply & demand

You know, I've lived in America all my life and the meaning of the term "supply and demand" always seemed totally obvious and self-evident. Now, however, it seems to be the source of endless confusion for the White House and others.

Like, on the supply side, seller #1 has four apples.

On the demand side, you have a shopper who wants four apples.

Nice match up. The "market" is where the buyer and seller meet to negotiate a price, which is fluid and depends on the needs and resources of both buyer and seller. The market is where they meet to negotiate a price that satisifes both of them.

In the perfect scenario above, a "balanced" market, the price would likely be the "cost" of the apples -- what it took to produce and deliver them, plus an acceptable profit for the seller, so he can sustain himself and continue growing more apples. He can't sell for less, except at a loss, which likely would result in him:  A) going out of business; B) growing fewer apples. The buyer has to decide if, to him, the value of the apples is worth the asking price. If the price is too high, the buyer will have to find a substitution or go without.

OK, supplier #2 has eight apples he's trying to unload. He's produced them for sale, doesn't want to pay to store them as inventory, and they're perishable.

On the demand side, we still have the buyer who wants four apples. 

Given that supply here is surplus of existing demand, and the seller is under some pressure to sell, the buyer might be able to get a lower price -- one that might represent a loss for the producer, but not so great a loss as losing the sale all together. The buyer pretty much controls this transaction, though if the buyer offers too low a price, the seller can try to find another buyer. If the buyer has to take a loss, he'll grow fewer apples, which actually would restore balance to the market.

OK, supplier #3 has two apples.

Our buyer still wants four apples, and is dismayed that only two are available.

If the supplier is smart, he'll raise the price to the uppermost limit of what the buyer is willing to pay. In this scenario, the seller controls the transaction pretty much. Greed? Yeah... also, the windfall profits can be employed to plant a couple more apple trees to increase the supply. With an increase in supply, the seller would have more apples to sell. The increased supply would restore balance to the market -- and bring prices down.

"Market balance" is achieved when the supplier accurately assesses demand and is able to meet demand at a price that is acceptable and even satisfactory to buyer and seller. After all, the whole object of the seller's activity is to produce and sell apples. Otherwise, he might as well retire to Florida.

So Gingrich -- and everyone else with a brain in their head -- says the price of gasoline will come down if the supply is increased. Additionally, the way this particular market is structured, the price will come down on ANTICIPATION of increased supply in the future.

The Comrade says, no, supply doesn't have a thing to do with the price. Then totally contradicts this statement by saying that if you want to reduce the price, you have to reduce demand.

Well, yeah, Given four apples. Now the buyer only wants two instead of four. You're still dealing with fundamental supply and demand. He's trying to increase the supply -- and lower the price -- by decreasing demand. Get it?

Apparently the Comrade doesn't get it. He's apparently never read Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, or any of those guys, only Marx and Saul Alinsky. But you see, even Marx and Alinsky can't escape from the rules of supply and demand. They can only try to manipulate it to achieve some bizarre outcome based upon their personal utopian fantasies.

See, if the Comrade can keep supply tight, the price will remain high in order to discourage demand.

Ready to give up your car? Want to pay twice a much to heat your house?

The supply and demand thing also applies to coal and natural gas. How much do you want to pay for electricity. Think demand for electricity is going to go down any time soon?

What will all this do to the cost (and eventually the price) of everything that requires energy for its production -- which is basically... EVERYTHING WE USE AND CONSUME.

Get it?

Supply and demand is the very heart of what's called "the free market." You start messing with this, you throw a wrench in the mechanism. It won't work anymore. And it's not working with the Comrade fiddling with it. And I'm sure he knows that.

Get it?

Save the Republic.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Anybody but Obama

Well, today was a huge primary day -- 10 states all across the country.

Mitt Romney I believe won five of these. Santorum suprisingly strong -- surprising to me, anyway. I like him, but not a huge fan. Gingrich won Georgia big time. Ron Paul also ran well.

So it's looking more and more like Romney's a done deal. He's acceptable, as far the default campaign slogan goes: ANYBODY BUT OBAMA.

And actually I like Romney personally. He's just not my first choice. Partly it's the Romneycare thing in Massachusetts. I mean, I couldn't imagine myself, as a consrvative, being quite that flexible. But Massachusetts is probably the most genuinely liberal state in the union, excluding California, which is so bonkers it doesn't even really matter. (Can't be accounted for, except fo the availability of drugs there.)

Makes you wonder about Romney, though. If I could ask him one single question it would be:

Why do you want to be president?

He's been running for this specific office since 2004. And you could speculate that his whole career in politics only ever had the single ultimate aim of capturing the presidency.

But why, Mitt?

Because it's there? The venerable answer to the question about why climb Mt. Everest. That doesn't quite fit as well -- it's not quite so inspirational -- when the objectcive is President of the USA.

Because the USA's in deep doodoo? But he tried to run in 2008, too, when the nation wasn't in quite such dire straits.

So why, Mitt?

He's a well-educated, highly accomplished, articulate person with strong personal values and a lovely family. No skeletons in his closet.

So why hasn't he caught fire? That's another question.

I don't mind his reticence, if that's what you want to call it. He's not a guy you'd invite over for beers. Dinner, yeah. Beers and a football game, probably not. You'd feel like you'd have to watch your language.

One pundit said Mitt is suffering the backlash from "coming in and clobbering his opponents with money." Yeah. I think that's it. It looks so unethical. And actually two-faced and deceptive. Nice, friendly, smiling, well-groomed Mitt out there shaking hands and all.. at the same time his buddies in the super pac are shivving the competition.

I don't know why he's running, and he just suffocates the competition with money.

He's supposed to be running out of money, actually. so we'll see how it goes now.

And, anyway, I'll vote for him against the Comrade.

Save te Republic.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

R.I.P. Andrew Breitbart

Gotta admit, when I first saw Andrew Breitbart, I thought he was some smart alec hippy leftist. He employed those kind of in-your-face tactics at times. And he'd worked for Huffington Post.

After actually listening to him for a few minutes, I was very happy he was on the conservative side.

Good grief! A conservative without a necktie.

Many in the media are saying he's "irreplaceable." He is.

I'm not happy about this. The only consolation is that he accomplished so much in a very short -- too short -- lifetime. You can only wonder how much more he could have done.

Sympathies and best wishes to his wife and kids. We share the sense of loss.

Save the Republic