Pazzo Pelosi and Sad Sack Harry Reid were apparently so caught up in the blood sport of shoving socialized medicine down the throats of the more intelligent resisters in congress that they forgot all about a budget. This is the first congress in decades that hasn't passed a budget.
Pazzo announced early on that this congress wouldn't be passing more any more big spending bills - having dumped generations of hopeless debt upon us through socialized medicine -- and apparently congress just never took up the matter at all.
But now, gee shucks, as the election approaches, the dumbasses in congress want to spend some money. The Stimulus isn't working, you see. All those fabulous high-paying jobs were supposed to be kicking in right about now, but alas! We're all still broke and standing in unemployment lines.
What the heck went wrong?
Maybe Pazzo and Sad Sack are brainless idiots. Think that might have something to do with it?
At any rate, now they don't have a budget. Under the law (if anyone cares about the law) congress can't spend money they haven't allocated. The US Constitution and more than 200 years of tradition make that pretty clear.
What to do?
I know, Pazzo said, a wayward strand of hair sticking to her Botox lipstick, let's "deem" a budget!
Remember, "deeming" was what they were going to do with the socialized medicine bill to pass it without a vote, since no congresscritter in their right mind (socialists excluded, note) would vote for it.
Now they want to "deem" a budget. Let's just pretend we have a budget so we can spend some more money we don't have.
Why don't we "deem" a congress with even the faintest glimmer of intelligence and "deem" the rest of them (that would be the vast majority) into a black hole near the nebula in Orion's belt. That might work.
Save the republic.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Test your political position
I didn't write the following; someone sent it to me in an email. But it seems pretty accurate:
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal legislates someone to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative reads this, he'll have a good laugh.
A liberal will be "offended".
* * *
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal legislates someone to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative reads this, he'll have a good laugh.
A liberal will be "offended".
* * *
It's STILL the economy, stupid
Some interesting stats about the state of the economy. The USA has lost 3.6 MILLION jobs since the Stimulus Bill saved us all from a recession. A couple weeks ago, an employment study noted that something like 360,000 jobs had been created by the federal government -- turns out they were mostly census jobs, and many of them represented census collectors who had been fired and re-hired several times, each re-hire representing a job created, and the firings apparently not counted at all.
By contrast, the private sector in the same study created maybe 25,000 jobs.
What's wrong with this picture?
The liberals run around saying, "Oh, but the Stimulus saved all kinds of state-level jobs." Yeah. Jobs that represent income for state legislators' and officials' useless brothers-in-law and similar. We all know how state government works. "Hey, let's tear up that highway once again, mangle traffic for months, and collect our bloated pensions off the backs of private taxpayers."
You know what? The Keynesian thing about government spending stimulating the economy only works on a very small scale and for a very short time. It can be effective as a last-resort stop-gap measure, if the funds expended are equal to what you can afford to flush down a toilet, and if the step is taken only to attract private capital and investment. Isn't that what "stimulus" means? Let's not confuse "stimulus" with "carrying union workers on our backs forever more."
The Stimulus Bill fails on both counts and it alsways did, and it never had the potential to do anything else. It will, however, extend the recession, because debt-spending does have to repaid, and with interest.
The trouble with government funding is that it's essentially a drain on private funds that could be better and more effectively applied to private industry and productivity, making and selling and generating profits on products and services that people really want.
The government doesn't produce very much that people want and are willing to pay for. What the public is willing to pay for is: education (increasingly home-schooled and private); police and fire departments; PROTECTING U.S. BORDERS (which the feds are actually suing Arizona for enforcing); national defense.
All the rest of the crap perpetrated by the feds and the state is just legislators winking and nodding at each other: "Hey! I found another way to buy us some more voters!"
It isn't a dem or a Republican thing. It's a political corruption thing.
Note that every time a politician talks about cutting government spending, they threaten to cut not the useless Backwoods County Historic Train Station Renovation Project, which is $5 million over-budget with no chance of completion by deadline if ever, but eliminating jobs at the Fire Department.
That's political blackmail -- Honestly, true extortion by any definition: You refuse to empty your pockets into my slush fund, and I'll let your house burn down.
It's disgusting. Really, a genuine insult to intelligence, and a slap in the voter's face. And we all see through it. But maybe enough private citizens are on the government gravy train so that they continue to let it happen, and hope and pray for more government spending lest they have to find a real job. God forbid.
And now the Comrade and the merry marxists want $50 BILLION more to pay off their cronies and/or secure their base of bribed voters.
You know what, why not roll this legislation up real tight and put it where the sun don't shine? You had your chance, buttheads, and you totally blew it. Let California fail. Let the teachers find summer employment if they can't subsist on $85,000 per year. Let those idiots who do nothing but stand on the highway blocking traffic find something more productive and proftable to do with their lives.
Hey, congress and the White House, just go play golf -- on your own dime, that would be nice -- and leave us all alone to fix our own problems. We don't need this government. This government is only standing in our way, sucking all the money out of our bank accounts and retirement funds and searching for more and more ways to put its boot on our necks.
How long before that $20 BILLION in BP money will be "diverted" to "indirectly affected" industries, like deputy-assistant-under-secretaries in the office of the regional-deputy-assistant-director-of-moving-paper-across-the-mail-room of some government office somewhere. How long before we see a "crisis" in useless government employee employment? Actually, we're already seeing it. That's what "Stimulus" is all about.
Hoping voters won't forget ANY of this in November. And if the dumb bastards try to push a bunch more of communist crap through in their lame duck session after the holidays -- go ahead! We'll just repeal it. Or better yet -- ignore the hell out of it.
Cash is good. Think green.
Save the republic.
By contrast, the private sector in the same study created maybe 25,000 jobs.
What's wrong with this picture?
The liberals run around saying, "Oh, but the Stimulus saved all kinds of state-level jobs." Yeah. Jobs that represent income for state legislators' and officials' useless brothers-in-law and similar. We all know how state government works. "Hey, let's tear up that highway once again, mangle traffic for months, and collect our bloated pensions off the backs of private taxpayers."
You know what? The Keynesian thing about government spending stimulating the economy only works on a very small scale and for a very short time. It can be effective as a last-resort stop-gap measure, if the funds expended are equal to what you can afford to flush down a toilet, and if the step is taken only to attract private capital and investment. Isn't that what "stimulus" means? Let's not confuse "stimulus" with "carrying union workers on our backs forever more."
The Stimulus Bill fails on both counts and it alsways did, and it never had the potential to do anything else. It will, however, extend the recession, because debt-spending does have to repaid, and with interest.
The trouble with government funding is that it's essentially a drain on private funds that could be better and more effectively applied to private industry and productivity, making and selling and generating profits on products and services that people really want.
The government doesn't produce very much that people want and are willing to pay for. What the public is willing to pay for is: education (increasingly home-schooled and private); police and fire departments; PROTECTING U.S. BORDERS (which the feds are actually suing Arizona for enforcing); national defense.
All the rest of the crap perpetrated by the feds and the state is just legislators winking and nodding at each other: "Hey! I found another way to buy us some more voters!"
It isn't a dem or a Republican thing. It's a political corruption thing.
Note that every time a politician talks about cutting government spending, they threaten to cut not the useless Backwoods County Historic Train Station Renovation Project, which is $5 million over-budget with no chance of completion by deadline if ever, but eliminating jobs at the Fire Department.
That's political blackmail -- Honestly, true extortion by any definition: You refuse to empty your pockets into my slush fund, and I'll let your house burn down.
It's disgusting. Really, a genuine insult to intelligence, and a slap in the voter's face. And we all see through it. But maybe enough private citizens are on the government gravy train so that they continue to let it happen, and hope and pray for more government spending lest they have to find a real job. God forbid.
And now the Comrade and the merry marxists want $50 BILLION more to pay off their cronies and/or secure their base of bribed voters.
You know what, why not roll this legislation up real tight and put it where the sun don't shine? You had your chance, buttheads, and you totally blew it. Let California fail. Let the teachers find summer employment if they can't subsist on $85,000 per year. Let those idiots who do nothing but stand on the highway blocking traffic find something more productive and proftable to do with their lives.
Hey, congress and the White House, just go play golf -- on your own dime, that would be nice -- and leave us all alone to fix our own problems. We don't need this government. This government is only standing in our way, sucking all the money out of our bank accounts and retirement funds and searching for more and more ways to put its boot on our necks.
How long before that $20 BILLION in BP money will be "diverted" to "indirectly affected" industries, like deputy-assistant-under-secretaries in the office of the regional-deputy-assistant-director-of-moving-paper-across-the-mail-room of some government office somewhere. How long before we see a "crisis" in useless government employee employment? Actually, we're already seeing it. That's what "Stimulus" is all about.
Hoping voters won't forget ANY of this in November. And if the dumb bastards try to push a bunch more of communist crap through in their lame duck session after the holidays -- go ahead! We'll just repeal it. Or better yet -- ignore the hell out of it.
Cash is good. Think green.
Save the republic.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Congress no better than BP
Tried to watch at least part of the congressional jeerings with BP today. I mean hearings. Really, shades of Toyota, Goldman Sachs, and GM -- simply a chance for congressmen to bully people. Congress believes it makes them look effective. But it just conjures up bad memories of dodging those kids in high school who used to make farting sounds in study hall.
BP CEO Tony What's-His-Face just sort of nodded and agreed. What else can he do, really? (Well, he could have made farting sounds, I guess. It would have livened things up.)
The highlight of the whole show was a Texas congressman named Barton, who apologized to BP for the federal "shake-down." Of course, then Barton later apologized for apologizing. And then I believe he issued a statement even later in which he apologized for apologizing for apologizing.
So let's walk this back. Let's begin with oil exploration and drilling being a very dirty and dangerous business. I mean, it is. Did you ever try to wash that crap off your hands? It also burns pretty quickly and easily.
So then we also have a bunch of rudderless youth in the USA (or worse, but I'm assuming their sincerity here) who want nothing more but to stand on a hilltop and hold hands with people. Preferably a hilltop wooded with ancient forests. They probably don't mind the idea of living in a cabin in the woods with no electricity. Very few have ever tried it, and they strike me as the type that couldn't survive 20 minutes without a cell phone and a Starbuck's, but they really like the idea of living in a cabin with no electricity.
Beside that, don't you care about the planet? (We need some Pazzo-Pelosi crocodile tears here and a few lonely notes from a violin. Or no, whale song.)
So if oil is a dirty and dangerous business, let's all hold hands on the hilltop and whine to our daddies and congresscritters about it. I know, let's force oil companies to drill 60 miles out to sea in water a mile deep!
That doesn't make oil drilling any more safe or clean. That only gives loony tree-huggers a sense of satisfaction that they've accomplished something with their relatively useless lives. Gives them a sense of purpose and something to believe it, similar to the way they attached themselves to the Comrade.
Oh, but let's also institute a bunch of incoherent and probably self-contradictory regulations for oil drilling while we're at it. That should fix it. But that depends on the regulations.
Show of hands: Ever read any government specs for ANY kind of job or work or product? The government doesn't write specs so much as it creates wish lists. "Gee, it would be nice if we could have a machine to generate all the electricity we might ever need, and it must include: no charge whatsoever; no odor, visual nightmares, harsh sounds, or any kind of any instrusiveness at all into anyone's life, or any animal's life; it must in no way involve carbon or carbon derivatives; no voter in the USA, or any potential immigrants, legal or otherwise, can ever take any offense to it whatsoever." Actually, that kinda sounds like the socialized medicine bill.
I worked at a place once where one of the engineer's sole job was trying to make sense of government specs for aircraft cleaning equipment. He told me that in one case, the interior measurements for one ordered machine were larger than the exterior messurements. Sorta like Dr. Who's phone box.
And even if you do write some barely-rational regulations, if your regulators are sharing porn and body fluids with oil industry lobbyists, the regulations just might not mean very much to anyone. I mean, hey, poring over documents that feature quadratic equations and all that crap isn't half as much fun as a lap dance in the bowels of some federal agency, is it?
Toss in the Comrade, who regards his duties as Chief Executive of the USA as being uncannily similar to those of a Cowboys cheerleader, assuming Chairman Mao is the quarterback, and voila! We have the most destructive industrial accident in history.
Congress makes me sick, and they seem to be deliberately working toward that goal. But BP hasn't been much more effective. However, it is "British" Petroleum, isn't it? They know exactly how to function in a socialist political environment, which is to say -- sidestep the rules, buy off the regulators with X-rated vids and the occasional blow job. Then smile in everyone's face and tell them "I don't know." And why develop a disaster plan for the Gulf of Mexico when the plan used in Alaska fills just as many pages? No one's going to bother to look at it anyway.
And so what is the answer from the blockheads in congress and in the White House? Regulation has failed! What we need is regulation!
To borrow from Dr. Phil: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
What we need is people with some intellectual capacity and boots-on-the-ground experience. None of the above-mentioned need apply.
And exactly why the hell are people waiting for government approvals on things? Just do it, you know? Got an idea to help the clean-up? Just do it. You certainly can't made a bigger mess.
Save the republic.
BP CEO Tony What's-His-Face just sort of nodded and agreed. What else can he do, really? (Well, he could have made farting sounds, I guess. It would have livened things up.)
The highlight of the whole show was a Texas congressman named Barton, who apologized to BP for the federal "shake-down." Of course, then Barton later apologized for apologizing. And then I believe he issued a statement even later in which he apologized for apologizing for apologizing.
So let's walk this back. Let's begin with oil exploration and drilling being a very dirty and dangerous business. I mean, it is. Did you ever try to wash that crap off your hands? It also burns pretty quickly and easily.
So then we also have a bunch of rudderless youth in the USA (or worse, but I'm assuming their sincerity here) who want nothing more but to stand on a hilltop and hold hands with people. Preferably a hilltop wooded with ancient forests. They probably don't mind the idea of living in a cabin in the woods with no electricity. Very few have ever tried it, and they strike me as the type that couldn't survive 20 minutes without a cell phone and a Starbuck's, but they really like the idea of living in a cabin with no electricity.
Beside that, don't you care about the planet? (We need some Pazzo-Pelosi crocodile tears here and a few lonely notes from a violin. Or no, whale song.)
So if oil is a dirty and dangerous business, let's all hold hands on the hilltop and whine to our daddies and congresscritters about it. I know, let's force oil companies to drill 60 miles out to sea in water a mile deep!
That doesn't make oil drilling any more safe or clean. That only gives loony tree-huggers a sense of satisfaction that they've accomplished something with their relatively useless lives. Gives them a sense of purpose and something to believe it, similar to the way they attached themselves to the Comrade.
Oh, but let's also institute a bunch of incoherent and probably self-contradictory regulations for oil drilling while we're at it. That should fix it. But that depends on the regulations.
Show of hands: Ever read any government specs for ANY kind of job or work or product? The government doesn't write specs so much as it creates wish lists. "Gee, it would be nice if we could have a machine to generate all the electricity we might ever need, and it must include: no charge whatsoever; no odor, visual nightmares, harsh sounds, or any kind of any instrusiveness at all into anyone's life, or any animal's life; it must in no way involve carbon or carbon derivatives; no voter in the USA, or any potential immigrants, legal or otherwise, can ever take any offense to it whatsoever." Actually, that kinda sounds like the socialized medicine bill.
I worked at a place once where one of the engineer's sole job was trying to make sense of government specs for aircraft cleaning equipment. He told me that in one case, the interior measurements for one ordered machine were larger than the exterior messurements. Sorta like Dr. Who's phone box.
And even if you do write some barely-rational regulations, if your regulators are sharing porn and body fluids with oil industry lobbyists, the regulations just might not mean very much to anyone. I mean, hey, poring over documents that feature quadratic equations and all that crap isn't half as much fun as a lap dance in the bowels of some federal agency, is it?
Toss in the Comrade, who regards his duties as Chief Executive of the USA as being uncannily similar to those of a Cowboys cheerleader, assuming Chairman Mao is the quarterback, and voila! We have the most destructive industrial accident in history.
Congress makes me sick, and they seem to be deliberately working toward that goal. But BP hasn't been much more effective. However, it is "British" Petroleum, isn't it? They know exactly how to function in a socialist political environment, which is to say -- sidestep the rules, buy off the regulators with X-rated vids and the occasional blow job. Then smile in everyone's face and tell them "I don't know." And why develop a disaster plan for the Gulf of Mexico when the plan used in Alaska fills just as many pages? No one's going to bother to look at it anyway.
And so what is the answer from the blockheads in congress and in the White House? Regulation has failed! What we need is regulation!
To borrow from Dr. Phil: The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
What we need is people with some intellectual capacity and boots-on-the-ground experience. None of the above-mentioned need apply.
And exactly why the hell are people waiting for government approvals on things? Just do it, you know? Got an idea to help the clean-up? Just do it. You certainly can't made a bigger mess.
Save the republic.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Minority rule in the name of "justice"
Saw a rather interesting news item on Fox today. Not headline news, really, but alarming.
Apparently Port Chester, NY, has a population that is 46% Latino, many if them being non-citizens legal or otherwise, and many kids under voting age. Somehow (and I don't know how this issue arose), the feds determined that Latinos were under-represented in local government. So a federal judge named Robinson devised this scheme to give every Latino voter six votes each to allow for greater "justice" in representation. That is, a Latino votes once, and the vote gets counted as six votes.
You know, we did something like this before in the USA. It's even in the Constitution, although it's been removed. It was called the "3/5ths clause." And it didn't really relate to voting, so much as to how the population was counted to determine the number of representatives in congress.
Under the 3/5ths clause, every slave was counted in the census as 3/5ths of a person. This was because many slave states had rather large populations of slaves -- or "persons in bondage" or whatever, the Constitution never used the word "slave" -- and the slaves weren't considered to be citizens, or even whole human beings, for that matter. Planters and slave owners believed that because slaves were not and never could be citizens, that their owners would be "under-represented" in congress, so they required this 3/5ths clause to even things out for themselves and allow them greater "justice."
The 3/5ths clause didn't give the slaves any votes or representation. It only gave their masters more weight in the House of Representatives. In other words, it supported their role as "master" and also cushioned them from any adverse effects resulting from the practice of slavery. In effect, it gave the slave owners much more power than they should have had.
The clause was amended and removed from the Constitution after the Civil War. The clause was, in fact, indirectly one of the causes of the Civil War.
Now it's regarded as "justice."
This Port Chester thing is actually like something out of the novel "1984," which proclaimed, "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others."
And who's to say that Latino voters, even armed with six votes each, wouldn't vote for the Gringo? In which case, wouldn't the feds regard them as STILL being "under-represented"?
This six-vote system is an assault on the concept of individual rights, substituting it with representation based on race, ethnicity, or whatever. This is what liberals think of as "justice." They are tragically misguided and demonstrate the danger of their ignorance.
Don't these idiots ever read history? I mean, really, are they that stupid? Not that it matters, really, but Federal Judge Robinson is black. Perhaps he should consult the spirit of his ancesters-past about how this type of representation worked for them prior to the Civil War.
By the way, by accident heard the first few minutes of the Comrade's speech last night, sort of as background noise while I was doing something else. Heard him say something about how China's energy policy should serve as a model for the USA, nearly vomited, and turned it off.
Apparently the merry marxists believe we should follow China's model of individual rights as a model for own government, too.
Save the republic.
Apparently Port Chester, NY, has a population that is 46% Latino, many if them being non-citizens legal or otherwise, and many kids under voting age. Somehow (and I don't know how this issue arose), the feds determined that Latinos were under-represented in local government. So a federal judge named Robinson devised this scheme to give every Latino voter six votes each to allow for greater "justice" in representation. That is, a Latino votes once, and the vote gets counted as six votes.
You know, we did something like this before in the USA. It's even in the Constitution, although it's been removed. It was called the "3/5ths clause." And it didn't really relate to voting, so much as to how the population was counted to determine the number of representatives in congress.
Under the 3/5ths clause, every slave was counted in the census as 3/5ths of a person. This was because many slave states had rather large populations of slaves -- or "persons in bondage" or whatever, the Constitution never used the word "slave" -- and the slaves weren't considered to be citizens, or even whole human beings, for that matter. Planters and slave owners believed that because slaves were not and never could be citizens, that their owners would be "under-represented" in congress, so they required this 3/5ths clause to even things out for themselves and allow them greater "justice."
The 3/5ths clause didn't give the slaves any votes or representation. It only gave their masters more weight in the House of Representatives. In other words, it supported their role as "master" and also cushioned them from any adverse effects resulting from the practice of slavery. In effect, it gave the slave owners much more power than they should have had.
The clause was amended and removed from the Constitution after the Civil War. The clause was, in fact, indirectly one of the causes of the Civil War.
Now it's regarded as "justice."
This Port Chester thing is actually like something out of the novel "1984," which proclaimed, "All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others."
And who's to say that Latino voters, even armed with six votes each, wouldn't vote for the Gringo? In which case, wouldn't the feds regard them as STILL being "under-represented"?
This six-vote system is an assault on the concept of individual rights, substituting it with representation based on race, ethnicity, or whatever. This is what liberals think of as "justice." They are tragically misguided and demonstrate the danger of their ignorance.
Don't these idiots ever read history? I mean, really, are they that stupid? Not that it matters, really, but Federal Judge Robinson is black. Perhaps he should consult the spirit of his ancesters-past about how this type of representation worked for them prior to the Civil War.
By the way, by accident heard the first few minutes of the Comrade's speech last night, sort of as background noise while I was doing something else. Heard him say something about how China's energy policy should serve as a model for the USA, nearly vomited, and turned it off.
Apparently the merry marxists believe we should follow China's model of individual rights as a model for own government, too.
Save the republic.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The real disaster is in the White House
Well, the Comrade is going on TV tonight to spew his marxist b.s. At the same time on History Channel, they're re-running an episode of Ancient Astronauts. Guess what I'll be watching?
If you look at the Gulf Oil Disaster, it has two parts: the underwater leak itself; the massive oil slick on the surface of the water.
BP may be the only people in the world who can cut off the leak somehow. Since rabid (and misguided) enviro-fanatics compelled only deep-water drilling, only very few organizations have the expertise to manage it. However, the massive oil slick polluting the Gulf of Mexico is another matter. That could have and should have been contained and cleaned up before it spread so far.
The world has the capabilities and the technology to clean up these kinds of spills. Apparently the Dutch offered to help -- and they have some kind of very specialized ships and crews who've done this kind of thing before and apparently make a living at it. They offered to help. The Comrade turned them down because the clean-up ships aren't manned by UAW and SEIU workers or other members of US labor unions. Don't want to piss off Andy Stern, after all. Better to destroy the fishing and tourist industries of the Gulf states.
Apart from the Dutch ships, the US Army Corps of Engineers suggested throwing up a sand bar to stop the oil before it hit the marshy delta where the Mississippi River runs into the Gulf. They couldn't create an impact statement and get it approved by the EPA before the oil began killing pelicans and other wildlife, and generally destroying the wetlands. Carol Browner-n-browner is "in control" and not allowing any plans to save the Gulf states.
This is another place where the Comrade could have helped -- the EPA, after all, is part of the executive branch. He's the ultimate boss of the EPA. He could have told Browner-n-browner to resign. But wasn't she an executive with the Socialist International or something? So we see where the Comrade's allegiance lies. (And lies and lies....)
But no, the Comrade was playing golf and entertaining athletes, and in his spare time, he could only look for someone else's ass to kick in regard to the Gulf oil spill. Don't DO anything, just find someone else to blame, which has been White House policy so far on every issue.
By comparison, George W. Bush is looking like an absolute superman for his quick and compassionate response to Hurricane Katrina.
I suspect that the Comrade's speech tonight will address "fat cats" who the Comrade believes are making out like bandits on the Gulf oil spill. Personally, I can't figure out how any capitalist could possibly make money off of this. So the Comrade will likely just paint BP executives as slavering demons who only want to ruin human life.
The Comrade ought to know about those kinds of folks, since he's one of them. Not that he's an executive by any stretch of the imagination, but he apparently is a slavering demon devoted to ruining human life.
He and Ram Emanuel probably are just manipulating this whole tragic situation in hopes of getting crap-n-tax through congress.
And dem congresscritters are just stupid enough -- maybe -- to grab at the opportunity to paste the blame for this mess on Someone Else and go along with this dictatorial and truly frightening piece of shit legislation. "Let's take away all the peoples' freedom and clean out their bank accounts. Then we won't have any more oil spills." This can only make sense to the blockheads in congress.
But if dem congresscritters believe voting for crap-n-tax is going to get them re-elected, they really need to think again. Or maybe they figure they're totally doomed anyway -- after all, the fools already violated the public trust with socialized medicine. They can't expect any help from the Comrade for their campaigns -- so far, the Comrade's endorsement has been the kiss of death for the politicians he's supported. So perhaps they figure, Hey, I've shot myself through the foot anyway, I might just as well take the rest of the country down with me.
Either that or they're just stupid.
Or both.
In any case, the USA is going down.
I'm going to die soon. I'm pretty old and I smoke cigarettes. And I will keep smoking if it will kill me any quicker. I don't want to have to watch this crap. I'd rather just be dead.
So, all this is just more reason to "throw the bums out," but it may be too late. And heaven knows, the generation coming up now, who've been raised on all this marxist bullshit, won't miss the freedom they've never had. They'll just become embittered adults, looking for someone else to blame for the futility and pointlessness of their lives.
I kinda feel sorry for them, but then, look who they voted for. Karma, no? Whatever goes around unfortunately comes around. Just no way around it.
If you look at the Gulf Oil Disaster, it has two parts: the underwater leak itself; the massive oil slick on the surface of the water.
BP may be the only people in the world who can cut off the leak somehow. Since rabid (and misguided) enviro-fanatics compelled only deep-water drilling, only very few organizations have the expertise to manage it. However, the massive oil slick polluting the Gulf of Mexico is another matter. That could have and should have been contained and cleaned up before it spread so far.
The world has the capabilities and the technology to clean up these kinds of spills. Apparently the Dutch offered to help -- and they have some kind of very specialized ships and crews who've done this kind of thing before and apparently make a living at it. They offered to help. The Comrade turned them down because the clean-up ships aren't manned by UAW and SEIU workers or other members of US labor unions. Don't want to piss off Andy Stern, after all. Better to destroy the fishing and tourist industries of the Gulf states.
Apart from the Dutch ships, the US Army Corps of Engineers suggested throwing up a sand bar to stop the oil before it hit the marshy delta where the Mississippi River runs into the Gulf. They couldn't create an impact statement and get it approved by the EPA before the oil began killing pelicans and other wildlife, and generally destroying the wetlands. Carol Browner-n-browner is "in control" and not allowing any plans to save the Gulf states.
This is another place where the Comrade could have helped -- the EPA, after all, is part of the executive branch. He's the ultimate boss of the EPA. He could have told Browner-n-browner to resign. But wasn't she an executive with the Socialist International or something? So we see where the Comrade's allegiance lies. (And lies and lies....)
But no, the Comrade was playing golf and entertaining athletes, and in his spare time, he could only look for someone else's ass to kick in regard to the Gulf oil spill. Don't DO anything, just find someone else to blame, which has been White House policy so far on every issue.
By comparison, George W. Bush is looking like an absolute superman for his quick and compassionate response to Hurricane Katrina.
I suspect that the Comrade's speech tonight will address "fat cats" who the Comrade believes are making out like bandits on the Gulf oil spill. Personally, I can't figure out how any capitalist could possibly make money off of this. So the Comrade will likely just paint BP executives as slavering demons who only want to ruin human life.
The Comrade ought to know about those kinds of folks, since he's one of them. Not that he's an executive by any stretch of the imagination, but he apparently is a slavering demon devoted to ruining human life.
He and Ram Emanuel probably are just manipulating this whole tragic situation in hopes of getting crap-n-tax through congress.
And dem congresscritters are just stupid enough -- maybe -- to grab at the opportunity to paste the blame for this mess on Someone Else and go along with this dictatorial and truly frightening piece of shit legislation. "Let's take away all the peoples' freedom and clean out their bank accounts. Then we won't have any more oil spills." This can only make sense to the blockheads in congress.
But if dem congresscritters believe voting for crap-n-tax is going to get them re-elected, they really need to think again. Or maybe they figure they're totally doomed anyway -- after all, the fools already violated the public trust with socialized medicine. They can't expect any help from the Comrade for their campaigns -- so far, the Comrade's endorsement has been the kiss of death for the politicians he's supported. So perhaps they figure, Hey, I've shot myself through the foot anyway, I might just as well take the rest of the country down with me.
Either that or they're just stupid.
Or both.
In any case, the USA is going down.
I'm going to die soon. I'm pretty old and I smoke cigarettes. And I will keep smoking if it will kill me any quicker. I don't want to have to watch this crap. I'd rather just be dead.
So, all this is just more reason to "throw the bums out," but it may be too late. And heaven knows, the generation coming up now, who've been raised on all this marxist bullshit, won't miss the freedom they've never had. They'll just become embittered adults, looking for someone else to blame for the futility and pointlessness of their lives.
I kinda feel sorry for them, but then, look who they voted for. Karma, no? Whatever goes around unfortunately comes around. Just no way around it.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Taxing the air we breathe -- or exhale
So some horse's ass like Van Jones or Carol Browner-n-browner was sitting around having a beer one day and said to themself: We've got to find a way to tax the air people breathe. No way out of that one. The entire world will be hock up to elbows if we can only find a way to get that through.
Enter Al Gore -- the monumental idiot looking to make a fast buck on environmentalism, since his political career failed.
I know! CO2 is the culprit. If we can compel some reputable scientists to actually support this bullshit, we can run the world! And see if we can't find a way to get around congress on this, because they won't want to raise taxes quite that high without offering any tangible benefit for it.
So they got some British dumbheads to fake some supports and then toss whatever "hard" evidence they ever had for it (their dog ate it), and got the kind of Sweden or someone all upset about the oceans rising, and Al Gore went out and dummied up a very stupid and sensational movie design to scare the crap out unsuspecting citizens.
Then some butthead from some US agency seeking funds (they're all, always seeking funds), decided that, Yeah, if we pretend the CO2 is dangerous, and swear up and down we need massive studies on it, etc etc., I can get enough funding to expand my little agency and grow my power base. Let's do it!!
So this agency declared that CO2 is dangerous. Like toxic to the planet.
So everytime you breathe out, you're exhaling CO2, and you're poisoning the planet.
Well, someone apparently said, "What are you people, sitting on your brains? Let's take it to the Supreme Court."
And the Supreme Court, most of whom ARE sitting on their brains, decided to uphold the really shaky and untenable contention that CO2 is a danger to the planet.
Then someone else said, "What are people nuts? Let's get congress to vote on it."
And congress, of course, is just anxious as Van Jones and Carol Browner-n-browner to tax the air we breathe -- after all, congress has run the nation into $14 TRILLION of debt -- so yesterday they voted, "Yeah. CO2 will kill us all. It's OK if the EPA fines people for being caught for possession, manufacture, and distribution of CO2." The crime is BREATHING.
Mark Levin was all upset about this last night. I'd gotten a couple emails in preceding days to contact my senators to tell them to vote "no" on penalizing breathing. However, my senators are Dick(head) Durbin and Yes-man shuck-n-jive Roland Burris, so what would be the point?
So apparently congress authorized the EPA to tax the simple act of breathing in and out.
First of all, according to the US Constitution, only the House of Representatives can originate a tax bill. I'm not so sure they can "authorize" an agency in the executive branch to take on this responsibility without a constitutional amendment.
I don't know. Any constitutional scholars out there?
And hey..... we may all have to just hold our breath until we can boot this jackasses out of office, then another couple years to clean up the wreckage they leave behind.
Save the republic.
Enter Al Gore -- the monumental idiot looking to make a fast buck on environmentalism, since his political career failed.
I know! CO2 is the culprit. If we can compel some reputable scientists to actually support this bullshit, we can run the world! And see if we can't find a way to get around congress on this, because they won't want to raise taxes quite that high without offering any tangible benefit for it.
So they got some British dumbheads to fake some supports and then toss whatever "hard" evidence they ever had for it (their dog ate it), and got the kind of Sweden or someone all upset about the oceans rising, and Al Gore went out and dummied up a very stupid and sensational movie design to scare the crap out unsuspecting citizens.
Then some butthead from some US agency seeking funds (they're all, always seeking funds), decided that, Yeah, if we pretend the CO2 is dangerous, and swear up and down we need massive studies on it, etc etc., I can get enough funding to expand my little agency and grow my power base. Let's do it!!
So this agency declared that CO2 is dangerous. Like toxic to the planet.
So everytime you breathe out, you're exhaling CO2, and you're poisoning the planet.
Well, someone apparently said, "What are you people, sitting on your brains? Let's take it to the Supreme Court."
And the Supreme Court, most of whom ARE sitting on their brains, decided to uphold the really shaky and untenable contention that CO2 is a danger to the planet.
Then someone else said, "What are people nuts? Let's get congress to vote on it."
And congress, of course, is just anxious as Van Jones and Carol Browner-n-browner to tax the air we breathe -- after all, congress has run the nation into $14 TRILLION of debt -- so yesterday they voted, "Yeah. CO2 will kill us all. It's OK if the EPA fines people for being caught for possession, manufacture, and distribution of CO2." The crime is BREATHING.
Mark Levin was all upset about this last night. I'd gotten a couple emails in preceding days to contact my senators to tell them to vote "no" on penalizing breathing. However, my senators are Dick(head) Durbin and Yes-man shuck-n-jive Roland Burris, so what would be the point?
So apparently congress authorized the EPA to tax the simple act of breathing in and out.
First of all, according to the US Constitution, only the House of Representatives can originate a tax bill. I'm not so sure they can "authorize" an agency in the executive branch to take on this responsibility without a constitutional amendment.
I don't know. Any constitutional scholars out there?
And hey..... we may all have to just hold our breath until we can boot this jackasses out of office, then another couple years to clean up the wreckage they leave behind.
Save the republic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)