It's called "capitalism" for a reason. It operates on glorious excess -- profit.
See, that's when you have a little more than you need and you use that to expand your productivity.
"Capital" is the excess.
Like.... suppose you grow potatoes. You grow, say, 10 acres of potatoes. You keep the potatoes from five acres to feed yourself and family. You sell four acres worth to cover your operating expenses, pay your workers, etc. You keep one acre to use to seed the field next year.
That one acre is your profit. You avoid consuming it and protect it even if it means cutting back a little bit now.
Because that one acre is what you need to plant next year.
That's your future. That ensures that you have a future.
The Comrade first went after the banks -- but destroying the banks was a process already well underway. And Dudd-Fudd legislation didn't help. Those regulations were crafted by Thomas Dodd and Barney Frank, the two apparently most economically illiterate people to ever walk the halls of congress, and have only made it more impossible for banks to lend.
And it makes me laugh when people (mostly democrats and marxists) claim that it was "de-regulation" that caused the housing bubble, bank collapse, etc. The financial industry wasn't "de-regulated" at all. Regulations changed -- they were not eliminated -- and the changes apparently were destructive -- and no doubt done all for our own "good."
At any rate, so the Comrade first nationalized the banks and put them under an even bigger pile of suffocating regulations. And banks tradtionally been a primary source of capital for businesses and producers of all kinds in the US free enterprise system.
So they're been neutalized pretty much.
The disater in housing sucked any capital out of middle class individual would-be or wanna-be investors, or simply people who had a dream.
So what's left? Who has any seed corn -- or capital -- left to jumpstart this economy?
Well, some corporations and Wall Street investors.
How do you wrench the capital from their clammy hands?
TAX THE RICH.
And thus ensure that the USA, flat on its back, will never rise again. The class warfare aspect of "tax the rich" is just an added bonus -- gives the more ignorant and psychotically resentful among the population a reason to vote for socialism.
And the Comrade is plainly and insultingly full of shit with his feeble efforts to attach the names of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Regan to any of his marxist nihilist schemes. It's just insulting.
Save the Republic.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
Women's work... never done
Amazing. A woman named Hilary Rosen, who up until yesterday seemed to be BFFs with people at the White House -- she visited there 35 times, but Jay Carneybarker and other "official" mouthpieces now pretend they never heard of her -- at any rate. this Rosen person announced very smugly that Ann Romney couldn't be giving her husband very good advice on economic issues because Ann "never worked a day in her life."
Seems that Ms. Rosen has opted to pursue a career and leaves her own child-rearing responsibilities to a nanny or someone else. Or else she couldn't have made such a stupid remark.
I don't have kids. As a teenager I spent my summer vacations and most weekends babysitting, and figured there were a lot of other things I'd rather do. Raising kids is, well, too much work.
First, being a mom is a 24/7 job -- no days off unless you're hospitalized, and then only if your kids are too young to come during visiting hours. Second, with kids, you're responsible for eveything. It's not like getting up before they do to make sure they get to school, it's also imparting to them somehow that the world is an OK kind of place and they'll be all right there, even on their own. You have to be genuinely excited about the kids learning to read and write, ride a bike, etc. Make sure they don't store pizza under their beds for a snack later on. And educate them about how to deal with strangers, adult and juvenile, help them figure out how to spend their own lives, convince them that they can conquer the world, but not with a gun necessarily. And you can do as much damage to a kid as you can do good. And without really intending either outcome.
The emotional dimension is both exhilarating (I hear) and totally exhausting (I know.)
So then Hilary Rosen tried to walk back her comments -- since every other democrat on the planet now pretends they don't know her and promise to cross the street if they see her on the sidewalk. She was only pointing out that Ann Romney never faced the challenges of having to work and raise kids at the same time.
Something interesting here, too. If a mom has a husband who's employed -- and not necessarily making six figures -- it is sometimes better economics for the family if the mom does stay home with the kids. I know people who sat down and figured out the costs associated with a working couple. Count the cost of transportation, technology, the wardrobe, eating out (both during the day and with the family at night), and the cost of reliabile child care -- and it's sometimes cheaper for the mom to stay at home because it allows for a better-run and more cost-effective household. And on the personal side, it's usually better for the kids and for the family as a whole. Knowing Mom is home provides a very powerful sense of security and stability.
And I'm not even confining this to moms. I knew a couple where the mom had a degree in electrical engineering, while the dad was a writer. The mom had the potential for a much higher regular income than the dad. They had four kids. The dad stayed at home -- worked pretty much part-time from a bedroom office -- and took care of the kids. No one ever accused him of "not working a day in his life."
Let's face it. Raising kids and running a house is work. And if you have a lot of money, it can be a lot more work. More social demands and responsibilities, a bigger house -- lots of contractors to deal with.
Look at it this way: which is easier to replace? A mom or a job?
Think about it.
Save the Republic.
Seems that Ms. Rosen has opted to pursue a career and leaves her own child-rearing responsibilities to a nanny or someone else. Or else she couldn't have made such a stupid remark.
I don't have kids. As a teenager I spent my summer vacations and most weekends babysitting, and figured there were a lot of other things I'd rather do. Raising kids is, well, too much work.
First, being a mom is a 24/7 job -- no days off unless you're hospitalized, and then only if your kids are too young to come during visiting hours. Second, with kids, you're responsible for eveything. It's not like getting up before they do to make sure they get to school, it's also imparting to them somehow that the world is an OK kind of place and they'll be all right there, even on their own. You have to be genuinely excited about the kids learning to read and write, ride a bike, etc. Make sure they don't store pizza under their beds for a snack later on. And educate them about how to deal with strangers, adult and juvenile, help them figure out how to spend their own lives, convince them that they can conquer the world, but not with a gun necessarily. And you can do as much damage to a kid as you can do good. And without really intending either outcome.
The emotional dimension is both exhilarating (I hear) and totally exhausting (I know.)
So then Hilary Rosen tried to walk back her comments -- since every other democrat on the planet now pretends they don't know her and promise to cross the street if they see her on the sidewalk. She was only pointing out that Ann Romney never faced the challenges of having to work and raise kids at the same time.
Something interesting here, too. If a mom has a husband who's employed -- and not necessarily making six figures -- it is sometimes better economics for the family if the mom does stay home with the kids. I know people who sat down and figured out the costs associated with a working couple. Count the cost of transportation, technology, the wardrobe, eating out (both during the day and with the family at night), and the cost of reliabile child care -- and it's sometimes cheaper for the mom to stay at home because it allows for a better-run and more cost-effective household. And on the personal side, it's usually better for the kids and for the family as a whole. Knowing Mom is home provides a very powerful sense of security and stability.
And I'm not even confining this to moms. I knew a couple where the mom had a degree in electrical engineering, while the dad was a writer. The mom had the potential for a much higher regular income than the dad. They had four kids. The dad stayed at home -- worked pretty much part-time from a bedroom office -- and took care of the kids. No one ever accused him of "not working a day in his life."
Let's face it. Raising kids and running a house is work. And if you have a lot of money, it can be a lot more work. More social demands and responsibilities, a bigger house -- lots of contractors to deal with.
Look at it this way: which is easier to replace? A mom or a job?
Think about it.
Save the Republic.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
White House hobby horse: "tax the rich"
Just heard on the news that the Comrade has now delivered 21 speeches in which he insists that we "tax the rich."
OK. Unemployment hasn't been below 8% since the Comrade took office. And it's actually about 14% if you count people who have just given up looking for a job.
The national debt is about $16 TRILLION dollars. A truly unimaginable sum.
Gasoline is still hovering about $4.00 a gallon -- not good for the economy on any level, and Comrade Butthead is sticking by his windmills and algae combo as the wave of the future.
The GSA, a government agency that actually is supposed to manage federal office space, properties, etc., has apparently been on some kind of drunken bender, spending close to $1 million for a party in Las Vegas for 300 employees -- and in another efficient activity, paid $330,000.00 to move a real estate agent from Denver to Hawaii. For what, I don't know. Seems they could have simply hired a real estate agent who already lived in Hawaii. The Denver agent then quit the GSA after being comfortably ensconced -- at taxpayer expense -- in the islands. What cost $330,000.00 to move? Did they move the agent's whole house or what?
George Zimmerman, who apparently was community-minded, supportive and helpful to neighbors of all colors, etc., shot and killed a kid who no longer seems to be a sweet and innocent as the press portrays. The local cops at first let Zimmerman off because he claimed self-defense. Now, after significant public pressure, and the New Black Panthers offering a bounty for him dead or alive -- the local authorities have now charged Zimmerman with 2nd-degree murder. However, no one but Zimmerman himself has complained about the Black Panthers putting a price on his head, which is illegal.
So in view of all this turmoil, fraud, and abuse of public authority of all kinds, the Comrade is most worried about rich people not being taxed enough.
I get the feeling the Comrade has taken himself out of the mainstream of the nation. I mean, who bloody cares about the rich?
The Comrade estimates that hiking the tax rate for the rich to 30% of thie income would raise $47 billion over ten years. That would fund the federal government for about six days.
But that's over 10 yesrs. The feds won't be collecting that for 10 years. Tax the rich more, you'll only collect the first year. After that, their funds will either all be in the Cayman Islands or buried in various tax shelters -- probably invested in other countries. The only result of will be that the funds will be withdrawn from the US economy. Period.
And I don't understand what this all about. I mean, does the Comrade think that most citizens just sit up all night stewing about those rich people? I mean, does he believe we're all just seething with envy and resentment? Like, we don't have anything else to think about?
It stinks rather like class warfare, doesn't it? The only problem is, nobody really gives a damn. And those who do are those who want to one day be rich themselves.
The Comrade is irrelevant. Look at it this way, if he disappeared tomorrow, would anyone miss him?
Actually, I think Biden might leave a bigger footprint. And at least Biden's funny; every time he opens his mouth, he sticks his foot in it.
Hurry November. Know what I mean?
Save the Republic.
OK. Unemployment hasn't been below 8% since the Comrade took office. And it's actually about 14% if you count people who have just given up looking for a job.
The national debt is about $16 TRILLION dollars. A truly unimaginable sum.
Gasoline is still hovering about $4.00 a gallon -- not good for the economy on any level, and Comrade Butthead is sticking by his windmills and algae combo as the wave of the future.
The GSA, a government agency that actually is supposed to manage federal office space, properties, etc., has apparently been on some kind of drunken bender, spending close to $1 million for a party in Las Vegas for 300 employees -- and in another efficient activity, paid $330,000.00 to move a real estate agent from Denver to Hawaii. For what, I don't know. Seems they could have simply hired a real estate agent who already lived in Hawaii. The Denver agent then quit the GSA after being comfortably ensconced -- at taxpayer expense -- in the islands. What cost $330,000.00 to move? Did they move the agent's whole house or what?
George Zimmerman, who apparently was community-minded, supportive and helpful to neighbors of all colors, etc., shot and killed a kid who no longer seems to be a sweet and innocent as the press portrays. The local cops at first let Zimmerman off because he claimed self-defense. Now, after significant public pressure, and the New Black Panthers offering a bounty for him dead or alive -- the local authorities have now charged Zimmerman with 2nd-degree murder. However, no one but Zimmerman himself has complained about the Black Panthers putting a price on his head, which is illegal.
So in view of all this turmoil, fraud, and abuse of public authority of all kinds, the Comrade is most worried about rich people not being taxed enough.
I get the feeling the Comrade has taken himself out of the mainstream of the nation. I mean, who bloody cares about the rich?
The Comrade estimates that hiking the tax rate for the rich to 30% of thie income would raise $47 billion over ten years. That would fund the federal government for about six days.
But that's over 10 yesrs. The feds won't be collecting that for 10 years. Tax the rich more, you'll only collect the first year. After that, their funds will either all be in the Cayman Islands or buried in various tax shelters -- probably invested in other countries. The only result of will be that the funds will be withdrawn from the US economy. Period.
And I don't understand what this all about. I mean, does the Comrade think that most citizens just sit up all night stewing about those rich people? I mean, does he believe we're all just seething with envy and resentment? Like, we don't have anything else to think about?
It stinks rather like class warfare, doesn't it? The only problem is, nobody really gives a damn. And those who do are those who want to one day be rich themselves.
The Comrade is irrelevant. Look at it this way, if he disappeared tomorrow, would anyone miss him?
Actually, I think Biden might leave a bigger footprint. And at least Biden's funny; every time he opens his mouth, he sticks his foot in it.
Hurry November. Know what I mean?
Save the Republic.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Social Darwinism vs. historical determinism
See, the Comrade thinks if he tosses around some multisyllabic words he picked up at Harvard, that no one will know what he's talking about. He often disguises his marxist agenda by couching it in vocabularly words that have a positive sound -- or describes it in ways that make it sound initimidating and inevitable. Marx himself did the same thing.
The other day the Comrade said we have a clear choice between "social Darwinism" and something else -- which is basically marxist communism, but I think he described it as "lilies that bloom year 'round" or something like that.
But, ooh kids, "social Darwinism." That sounds nasty, huh? It's basically survival of the fittest. And being that Darwin's theory of evolution is based on the premise that those who survive are those who are best suited to thrive in their environments, there's really no way we can get away from social Darwinism, is there?
I mean, even if the Comrade could construct "an economy built to last," apparently a communist one since that seems to be what he's going for, the people who will thrive in that kind of an environment will be the ones who learn how to manipulate that system most effectively. And what would that require? Hmmm, let's see.
I can't think of any other way to thrive in the kind of world the Comrade is "fundamentally transforming" this nation into.
Because apparently, under the Comrade's diktats, anyone who actually produces something or provides a service for pay and hopes to keep their profits is an evil "fat cat" stealing the "wealth" from those who sit on their butts and do nothing. (Or not "nothing." It seems OK by the Comrade to recruit them to go terrorize bankers every now and then.)
"Historical determinism" means basically that history, or human experience, moves inevitably toward a single outcome. That is, history sort of moves by itself, and we're all caught up in the wave. Nothing we can do about it. It's not our fault.
Does this explain the White House's "it's not my fault" attitude regarding its own failures?
Anyway, marxism teaches historical determinism. According to Marx, all human experience on the planet is controlled by "dialectics," a concept actually developed by a guy named Hegel, whose work is pretty much unintelligible. This is how dialectics works: You say "yes." Which triggers me saying "no." We have a fight. This happens over and over again. And that is what moves history.
Marx believed he could look into a crystal ball and see where all these dialectic "swings of the pendulum" from yes to no to conflict would end up. According to Marx, the bougeois said "yes." The working class said "no." The classes would be in continual conflict that would result in revolution and the overthrow of the bourgeois class. When the workers eventually -- and inevitably -- take over, Marx happily predicted that the result would be a communist utopia.
Ever since, marxists like the Comrade have done everything they could to foster and encourage class warfare to trigger the revolution and bring on utopia.
Do you believe this? Is that how history works?
I watched a TV show over the weekend that claimed that people like Da Vinci, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, too, I guess, were probably people who had had some kind of communication with extraterrestrial aliens. After all, there are two years of Da Vinci's life that are not accounted for. The aliens gave him and the others lots of smarts and insight so that these individuals could do and make things that would redirect history.
To me, the alien theory makes about as much sense as Marx's dialectics.
And maybe extraterrestrials would be easier to live with than IRS agents and/or other federal bureaucrats. At least the aliens are supposed to be intelligent.
Save the Republic.
The other day the Comrade said we have a clear choice between "social Darwinism" and something else -- which is basically marxist communism, but I think he described it as "lilies that bloom year 'round" or something like that.
But, ooh kids, "social Darwinism." That sounds nasty, huh? It's basically survival of the fittest. And being that Darwin's theory of evolution is based on the premise that those who survive are those who are best suited to thrive in their environments, there's really no way we can get away from social Darwinism, is there?
I mean, even if the Comrade could construct "an economy built to last," apparently a communist one since that seems to be what he's going for, the people who will thrive in that kind of an environment will be the ones who learn how to manipulate that system most effectively. And what would that require? Hmmm, let's see.
- Self-inficted wounds that allow you to collect disability?
- A lot of brown-nosing of "the powers that be," who, by the way, control every aspect of the economy?
- Failure/refusal to do anything for your own self, proving that you are the most incompetent and therefore have the greatest "need?"
- Getting a job with a union or for the feds?
- Winning the loltery
I can't think of any other way to thrive in the kind of world the Comrade is "fundamentally transforming" this nation into.
Because apparently, under the Comrade's diktats, anyone who actually produces something or provides a service for pay and hopes to keep their profits is an evil "fat cat" stealing the "wealth" from those who sit on their butts and do nothing. (Or not "nothing." It seems OK by the Comrade to recruit them to go terrorize bankers every now and then.)
"Historical determinism" means basically that history, or human experience, moves inevitably toward a single outcome. That is, history sort of moves by itself, and we're all caught up in the wave. Nothing we can do about it. It's not our fault.
Does this explain the White House's "it's not my fault" attitude regarding its own failures?
Anyway, marxism teaches historical determinism. According to Marx, all human experience on the planet is controlled by "dialectics," a concept actually developed by a guy named Hegel, whose work is pretty much unintelligible. This is how dialectics works: You say "yes." Which triggers me saying "no." We have a fight. This happens over and over again. And that is what moves history.
Marx believed he could look into a crystal ball and see where all these dialectic "swings of the pendulum" from yes to no to conflict would end up. According to Marx, the bougeois said "yes." The working class said "no." The classes would be in continual conflict that would result in revolution and the overthrow of the bourgeois class. When the workers eventually -- and inevitably -- take over, Marx happily predicted that the result would be a communist utopia.
Ever since, marxists like the Comrade have done everything they could to foster and encourage class warfare to trigger the revolution and bring on utopia.
Do you believe this? Is that how history works?
I watched a TV show over the weekend that claimed that people like Da Vinci, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, Steve Jobs, too, I guess, were probably people who had had some kind of communication with extraterrestrial aliens. After all, there are two years of Da Vinci's life that are not accounted for. The aliens gave him and the others lots of smarts and insight so that these individuals could do and make things that would redirect history.
To me, the alien theory makes about as much sense as Marx's dialectics.
And maybe extraterrestrials would be easier to live with than IRS agents and/or other federal bureaucrats. At least the aliens are supposed to be intelligent.
Save the Republic.
The future of energy
Neil Cavuto is one of my favorite TV news people. On one show last week, he ran a brief clip of Senator Dick(head) Durbin, (d-IL), telling people that all the tornados and similar bad weather lately should spur us all to buy Chevy Volts. Because all the tornados, etc., are due to us burning fossil fuels, you see.
Cavuto was totally ticked off. He didn't joke, as he usually does. He just said something to the effect that Durbin's comment was probably one of the stupidest things he'd ever heard, and he wondered how blockheads like Durbin get elected. A question not far from my own mind.
Hey, Neil, Durbin's from Illinois, like Saul Alinsky, Ram Emanual, David Axelrod, Richard Speck and the Comrade. 'Nuff said?
Honestly, I'll take this one step further and ask: Why is wind and solar power -- and shall we add algae? -- supposed to be the wave of the future?
Why? Because Al Gore said so. Al Gore said lots and lots of things that are similar loads of crap. Since that British "scientist" admitted that his dog ate the documentation behind his gloomy-crytal-ball-future-climate-computer-model, there's absolutely nothing to back up claims that 1.) "global warming" or "climate change" are driven by human action, and; 2.) that "global warming" or "climate change" even exists. Period.
The weather changes all the time. Does climate? Well, the earth has entertained a couple ice ages and stuff like that. But if anything like that is happening now, it isn't reflected in the hard data collected around the world over the last couple of decades. There's been periods of goofy weather. Climate remains about the same.
The most recent geological surveys show that the earth -- and particularly North America -- has vast untapped resouces of oil and natural gas, both fossil fuels, as well as coal. Matter of fact, if you take a spin down the Pennsylvania Turnpike in western Pennsylvania, you seem to be driving between cliffs of coal, which are covered over with a kind of chicken wire to prevent it raining down on your head. The air even smells like a coal bin. Drive through Kentucky and parts of Tennessee, you'll see huge coal ledges outcropping from the soil along every hillside.
But solar and wind represent the future of energy?
In what universe?
Just the contrary, due to their unreliability and inefficiency, wind and solar were long ago replaced by fossil fuels whenever and wherever that was possible.
And as far as electric cars go (or actually don't go), if they run on electricity, in the USA they're coal-powered, aren't they to a very large extent? Until the geniuses at GM figure out some wind turbine beany type of arrangement, or solar panels, that can be fixed to the roof and geared somehow to run reliably to provide power for long distance transportation.
Wind and solar don't work very well. They chew up the landscape. They're ugly and often dangerous. They're inefficient and way to expensive compared to fossil fuels.
But the Comrade's vision of the future seems to be not much more than a kind of blown out, bomb-damaged kind of version of some ancient past. Either that or I suppose we could construct new homes and commercial buildings at least partly underground, which in most of the USA, remains a pretty constant 54 degrees or so. And hey, if we lived underground, we could probably dig and burn as much coal as we like and the feds will never know.
Sound like a plan?
Save the Republic.
Cavuto was totally ticked off. He didn't joke, as he usually does. He just said something to the effect that Durbin's comment was probably one of the stupidest things he'd ever heard, and he wondered how blockheads like Durbin get elected. A question not far from my own mind.
Hey, Neil, Durbin's from Illinois, like Saul Alinsky, Ram Emanual, David Axelrod, Richard Speck and the Comrade. 'Nuff said?
Honestly, I'll take this one step further and ask: Why is wind and solar power -- and shall we add algae? -- supposed to be the wave of the future?
Why? Because Al Gore said so. Al Gore said lots and lots of things that are similar loads of crap. Since that British "scientist" admitted that his dog ate the documentation behind his gloomy-crytal-ball-future-climate-computer-model, there's absolutely nothing to back up claims that 1.) "global warming" or "climate change" are driven by human action, and; 2.) that "global warming" or "climate change" even exists. Period.
The weather changes all the time. Does climate? Well, the earth has entertained a couple ice ages and stuff like that. But if anything like that is happening now, it isn't reflected in the hard data collected around the world over the last couple of decades. There's been periods of goofy weather. Climate remains about the same.
The most recent geological surveys show that the earth -- and particularly North America -- has vast untapped resouces of oil and natural gas, both fossil fuels, as well as coal. Matter of fact, if you take a spin down the Pennsylvania Turnpike in western Pennsylvania, you seem to be driving between cliffs of coal, which are covered over with a kind of chicken wire to prevent it raining down on your head. The air even smells like a coal bin. Drive through Kentucky and parts of Tennessee, you'll see huge coal ledges outcropping from the soil along every hillside.
But solar and wind represent the future of energy?
In what universe?
Just the contrary, due to their unreliability and inefficiency, wind and solar were long ago replaced by fossil fuels whenever and wherever that was possible.
And as far as electric cars go (or actually don't go), if they run on electricity, in the USA they're coal-powered, aren't they to a very large extent? Until the geniuses at GM figure out some wind turbine beany type of arrangement, or solar panels, that can be fixed to the roof and geared somehow to run reliably to provide power for long distance transportation.
Wind and solar don't work very well. They chew up the landscape. They're ugly and often dangerous. They're inefficient and way to expensive compared to fossil fuels.
But the Comrade's vision of the future seems to be not much more than a kind of blown out, bomb-damaged kind of version of some ancient past. Either that or I suppose we could construct new homes and commercial buildings at least partly underground, which in most of the USA, remains a pretty constant 54 degrees or so. And hey, if we lived underground, we could probably dig and burn as much coal as we like and the feds will never know.
Sound like a plan?
Save the Republic.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Close, but no coronation
Well, I had a few details wrong in the last blog, though the main points were all correct.
It was three judges in Texas who asked Eric Holder to explain the policy of the executive branch regarding the judicial -- asking for a 3-page response outlining exactly why it is that the judicial branch can and has struck down legislation that violates the strictures of the Constitution.
FYI, the three branches of government, Congress, the Supremes, and the White House, have equal authority. None of them rules the other, though they each have the power to undo what the other does. The framers set up the government this way so that it would likely destroy itself long before it destroyed the nation as a whole -- and WE, THE PEOPLE, would have time to make a few of our own corrections before the situation got too desperate.
Apparently Holder complied with the Texans' demands -- I mean you can buy academic papers about this online -- admitting that the Comrade was simply strutting his marxist stuff and pretending to be a dictator for the benefit of a bunch of editors and publishers from the AP wire.
Curiously enough, the Comrade himself made a feeble effort to take back his attack on the Supreme Court. Unusual for him to admit to any errors in judgment. Apparently his ego can't stand to be corrected.
Showed his hand, huh? His blind ambition for absolute power and and his contempt for the United States showing through.
He's wise to wait until if and when he wins a second term to put that kind of stuff on display. Then, at least in his own mind, he can do whatever he damn pleases with the nation because he won't have to pay any attention to voters at all. Not lilke he has so far.
On Fox yesterday, Judge Napolitano noted that the Comrade is moving dangerously close to seizing dictatorial power. Like... hmmm... Napolean, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chavez.
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed.
Anyone who votes for the Comrade in November very likely has masochistic tendencies or suffers from Stockholm Syndrome. That's pretty clear.
Save the Republic.
It was three judges in Texas who asked Eric Holder to explain the policy of the executive branch regarding the judicial -- asking for a 3-page response outlining exactly why it is that the judicial branch can and has struck down legislation that violates the strictures of the Constitution.
FYI, the three branches of government, Congress, the Supremes, and the White House, have equal authority. None of them rules the other, though they each have the power to undo what the other does. The framers set up the government this way so that it would likely destroy itself long before it destroyed the nation as a whole -- and WE, THE PEOPLE, would have time to make a few of our own corrections before the situation got too desperate.
Apparently Holder complied with the Texans' demands -- I mean you can buy academic papers about this online -- admitting that the Comrade was simply strutting his marxist stuff and pretending to be a dictator for the benefit of a bunch of editors and publishers from the AP wire.
Curiously enough, the Comrade himself made a feeble effort to take back his attack on the Supreme Court. Unusual for him to admit to any errors in judgment. Apparently his ego can't stand to be corrected.
Showed his hand, huh? His blind ambition for absolute power and and his contempt for the United States showing through.
He's wise to wait until if and when he wins a second term to put that kind of stuff on display. Then, at least in his own mind, he can do whatever he damn pleases with the nation because he won't have to pay any attention to voters at all. Not lilke he has so far.
On Fox yesterday, Judge Napolitano noted that the Comrade is moving dangerously close to seizing dictatorial power. Like... hmmm... Napolean, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chavez.
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed.
Anyone who votes for the Comrade in November very likely has masochistic tendencies or suffers from Stockholm Syndrome. That's pretty clear.
Save the Republic.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
White House assaults the Supreme Court
Let me tell you, the Comrade puts Hitler to shame in terms of sheer audacity, as well as powerlust.
That's not name-calling or exaggeration. Goebbels, one of Hitler's peeps, crafted what's called "Big Lie" propaganda -- something the Comrade practices routinely. The Comrade has invented a new twist on it -- tell some monumental Big Lie, or launch some huge assault on the nation, then accuse your opponents of exactly the same thing.
For example, apparently the Comrade observed the rather pathetic showing the pro-socialist attorney put forth in the Supreme Court to attempt to defend socialized medicine. It was sort of like, "Well, some people like socialized medicine." And let me have another sip of water.
You know, as anyone who even had a slight brush with law school knows, or even people who just occasionally watch "Law & Order" or TruTV (formerly Court TV), when you argue a case, you have to introduce some sort of structured and credible logic into your statements.
There is no logic in the socialized medicine bill, hence, no argument to support it. Just an over-priced guy standing there with egg all over his face. He must get paid an awful lot to play whipping boy for the White House marxists.
Realizing that socialized medicine is unconstitutional and actually totally destructive to the United States government, the Comrade has made a move that I first laughed at. I mean, I thought the TV news guy was joking. But no, it's true. Jay Carneybarker confirms it.
The Comrade wants a statement from Eric Holder (there's a crack attorney, or an attorney so addle-brained you suspect he's on crack) about whether or not the "unelected" Supreme Court can strike down a law that was passed by a "majority."
I still have coffee shooting out my nose. But the thing is -- this is serious. I mean, the Comrade really did this. It's really stunning. It makes the Reichstag fire look bumbling and crude.
And Comrade Butthead supposedly taught consitutional law? No doubt he worked at one of those schools that sends out email blasts about "earning your degree in six weeks." I hope his one-time students are demanding a refund.
Apparently the Comrade has never read the U.S. Constitution. Supreme Court judges are not elected. Hey, 'Rad, remember -- you even got to appoint a few yourself. Or did you get in the head with a golf ball and it just all left your mind?
Then he's also claiming that the Supreme Court can't strike down legislation. Well, so he doesn't know any American history, either. But we already knew that. Seems to me that it's the JOB of the Supreme Court to strike down legislation -- or even crazy-ass schemes hatched in the White House -- that violates the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND -- THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
The Supremes aren't "making new law" as the term "judicial activism" suggests. That might apply if they actually went through the socialized medicine bill and determined what parts of it should stand -- if they rewrote the bill, in other words. And the judges don't seem inclined to do that.
And Congress can change the Constitution -- there's a procedure for that -- which was in no way part of the sausage-making process that produced the socialized medicine bill.
Yeah -- this is the straw that broke the camel's back... that the socialized medicine bill was passed by a "democratic majority."
Only democrats voted for it, and only after Pelosi, Reid, and Max Baucus bought off congressional whore Mary Landrieu ("It wasn't $100 billion, it was $500 billion she crowed loudly on the floor of the Senate, with bed-hair, and sucking on a post-coitus cigarette), and bribing and extorting people from Nebraska (Cornhusker kickback) and Florida to get their votes. God only knows what they did to Joe Lieberman -- that was behind closed doors. We can only imagine. Apparently he's not going to run again.
This is a "democratic" process? Only if you accept mafia tactics as legitimate persuasive tools. And perhaps people do, in Iran or Venezuela, but it doesn't work well in the United States.
WHAT A CROCK OF B.S. THIS IS. And it just stinks of utter desperation. Did the Comrade really believe the USA was ripe for his marxist takeover? Poor fool.
But go ahead, Comrade -- take on the Supreme Court. He's all kinda broody and hurt that they don't love him the way Tatiana Ali and Hugo Chavez do. That's very cute. What next? Get your ragtail OWies out there to stink up the Mall and insult us all by claiming to "represent" us? Put on some kind of show that convinces no one but Chris Mathews and the other lamebrains at MSNBC?
Go ahead. You'e only assuring a monumental landslide for Republicans in November.
And I just can't wait.
Save the Republic.
That's not name-calling or exaggeration. Goebbels, one of Hitler's peeps, crafted what's called "Big Lie" propaganda -- something the Comrade practices routinely. The Comrade has invented a new twist on it -- tell some monumental Big Lie, or launch some huge assault on the nation, then accuse your opponents of exactly the same thing.
For example, apparently the Comrade observed the rather pathetic showing the pro-socialist attorney put forth in the Supreme Court to attempt to defend socialized medicine. It was sort of like, "Well, some people like socialized medicine." And let me have another sip of water.
You know, as anyone who even had a slight brush with law school knows, or even people who just occasionally watch "Law & Order" or TruTV (formerly Court TV), when you argue a case, you have to introduce some sort of structured and credible logic into your statements.
There is no logic in the socialized medicine bill, hence, no argument to support it. Just an over-priced guy standing there with egg all over his face. He must get paid an awful lot to play whipping boy for the White House marxists.
Realizing that socialized medicine is unconstitutional and actually totally destructive to the United States government, the Comrade has made a move that I first laughed at. I mean, I thought the TV news guy was joking. But no, it's true. Jay Carneybarker confirms it.
The Comrade wants a statement from Eric Holder (there's a crack attorney, or an attorney so addle-brained you suspect he's on crack) about whether or not the "unelected" Supreme Court can strike down a law that was passed by a "majority."
I still have coffee shooting out my nose. But the thing is -- this is serious. I mean, the Comrade really did this. It's really stunning. It makes the Reichstag fire look bumbling and crude.
And Comrade Butthead supposedly taught consitutional law? No doubt he worked at one of those schools that sends out email blasts about "earning your degree in six weeks." I hope his one-time students are demanding a refund.
Apparently the Comrade has never read the U.S. Constitution. Supreme Court judges are not elected. Hey, 'Rad, remember -- you even got to appoint a few yourself. Or did you get in the head with a golf ball and it just all left your mind?
Then he's also claiming that the Supreme Court can't strike down legislation. Well, so he doesn't know any American history, either. But we already knew that. Seems to me that it's the JOB of the Supreme Court to strike down legislation -- or even crazy-ass schemes hatched in the White House -- that violates the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND -- THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.
The Supremes aren't "making new law" as the term "judicial activism" suggests. That might apply if they actually went through the socialized medicine bill and determined what parts of it should stand -- if they rewrote the bill, in other words. And the judges don't seem inclined to do that.
And Congress can change the Constitution -- there's a procedure for that -- which was in no way part of the sausage-making process that produced the socialized medicine bill.
Yeah -- this is the straw that broke the camel's back... that the socialized medicine bill was passed by a "democratic majority."
Only democrats voted for it, and only after Pelosi, Reid, and Max Baucus bought off congressional whore Mary Landrieu ("It wasn't $100 billion, it was $500 billion she crowed loudly on the floor of the Senate, with bed-hair, and sucking on a post-coitus cigarette), and bribing and extorting people from Nebraska (Cornhusker kickback) and Florida to get their votes. God only knows what they did to Joe Lieberman -- that was behind closed doors. We can only imagine. Apparently he's not going to run again.
This is a "democratic" process? Only if you accept mafia tactics as legitimate persuasive tools. And perhaps people do, in Iran or Venezuela, but it doesn't work well in the United States.
WHAT A CROCK OF B.S. THIS IS. And it just stinks of utter desperation. Did the Comrade really believe the USA was ripe for his marxist takeover? Poor fool.
But go ahead, Comrade -- take on the Supreme Court. He's all kinda broody and hurt that they don't love him the way Tatiana Ali and Hugo Chavez do. That's very cute. What next? Get your ragtail OWies out there to stink up the Mall and insult us all by claiming to "represent" us? Put on some kind of show that convinces no one but Chris Mathews and the other lamebrains at MSNBC?
Go ahead. You'e only assuring a monumental landslide for Republicans in November.
And I just can't wait.
Save the Republic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)