We've gone thru a lot of good reasons why Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel would conspire to blow up BP's Deepwater Horizon rig:
-to walk back prior statements about additional drilling
-to hurt red states bordering the Gulf region
-to force "cap and trade" legislation down the nation's throat in a crisis atmosphere, thus looting even more money from the private sector to pay for expanded government
-to set a precedent of controlling media access
-to eliminate oil drilling entirely, and hope that someone invents a solar powered car by next Thursday
The last reason is one that is fleshed out a bit more by... Reason, ironically, as they explain what the benefits would be to the powers that be of an "oil crisis":
Wanting—or creating—scarcity has always been a part of the leftist agenda, on the theory that scarcities create the need for government allocation and control. One of the greatest threats of the current situation is that environmental extremists will use it as a justification to further their misguided agenda.
Actually, this brings Obama's frantic push for health-care socialization into greater focus. National health care systems have always created scarcity and forced rationing (ask Obama's recent appointee, a big fan of rationing life and death); just think of the political pull Obama's apparatchiks would have once they have control over the flow of dwindling medical supplies across America. Who would not swear fealty to the powers that be in order to get a piece of that action?
And what would be different if the flow of oil - the ability to turn lights on and off, for businesses to open and close, the ability to avoid freezing to death in the winter and burring to death in the summer - was strictly controlled by Obama?
Same result. A massive increase in personal power for Obama, political power by the Democrats, and regulatory power by the bureaucracies involved.
Can you see why blowing up the BP oil rig was a no-brainer for Obama? Sure, it's a bit out of hand now, but he can still get everything he wanted, and now that's he stopped talking about it completely (10 days now?), maybe everyone will forget about that messy spill down in the Gulf...
If not, he can always send tanks into downtown Phoenix...
Friday, July 09, 2010
LeBron James To Miami: A Tax Refugee?
Any why not? Why in the world would you pay millions upon millions of dollars for the "privilege" of working in New York, New Jersey, or Cleveland? I can't speak for LeBron, but this sure as hell would have influenced my descion:
The tax savings for James in Miami over New York City would be staggering, according to the Post’s analysis.
“On a five-year contract worth $96 million -- what he'd get from the Knicks or the Heat -- LeBron would pay $12.34 million in New York taxes.” Florida has no state income tax.
New Jersey and Ohio, the other reported frontrunners to attract James, also have state income taxes, but they are not as his as in New York. Based on a $96 million contract, James would pay $5.69 million in state taxes if he re-signed with the Cleveland Cavaliers. If he signed with the New Jersey Nets, James would pay $10.32 million in state taxes.
LeBron is smart, and whether he intended to or not, he has taught a great economic lesson to liberals, who believe with the fervor of the rightous that another "millionaires tax" is all any state/federal government needs to avoid cutting spending.
Of course, a tax on millionaires (in New Jersey, where math education is not what it used to be, the recently vetoed "millionaires tax" kicked in at $400K) affects everyone, rich and poor. To wit:
Robert Schoenberger and Teresa Dixon Murray of the Cleveland Plain-Dealer estimated that downtown Cleveland businesses will lose $48 million over the course of the NBA season without James.
Apply that thinking to New York. Adding LeBron James to the Knicks would have added tens of millions in tax revenue taken off the top of every ticket and t-shirt sold - in other words, the state would have taken a cut of every "Lebron dollar" spent. But no, instead they insisted on a outsize tax - a punitive one, really - on the the man who would provide their city/state with the ability to generate additional revenue by his mere existence.
But Lebron felt he shouldn't be punished for his ability to make money, and so walked away from the Big Apple. And the greedy parliament of whores that make up the state legislature have now lost a lucrative form of revenue that would have lasted for years because of their insistence on punitive taxes on the men of ability, the men who create the wealth they see fit to confiscate.
We've seen this happen before, incidentally - here's a two minute drill on how "soak the rich" economics really works:
Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."
One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.
Is there a lesson learned here? Not by liberals and Democrats, unfortunately - they're all soccer fans...
The tax savings for James in Miami over New York City would be staggering, according to the Post’s analysis.
“On a five-year contract worth $96 million -- what he'd get from the Knicks or the Heat -- LeBron would pay $12.34 million in New York taxes.” Florida has no state income tax.
New Jersey and Ohio, the other reported frontrunners to attract James, also have state income taxes, but they are not as his as in New York. Based on a $96 million contract, James would pay $5.69 million in state taxes if he re-signed with the Cleveland Cavaliers. If he signed with the New Jersey Nets, James would pay $10.32 million in state taxes.
LeBron is smart, and whether he intended to or not, he has taught a great economic lesson to liberals, who believe with the fervor of the rightous that another "millionaires tax" is all any state/federal government needs to avoid cutting spending.
Of course, a tax on millionaires (in New Jersey, where math education is not what it used to be, the recently vetoed "millionaires tax" kicked in at $400K) affects everyone, rich and poor. To wit:
Robert Schoenberger and Teresa Dixon Murray of the Cleveland Plain-Dealer estimated that downtown Cleveland businesses will lose $48 million over the course of the NBA season without James.
Apply that thinking to New York. Adding LeBron James to the Knicks would have added tens of millions in tax revenue taken off the top of every ticket and t-shirt sold - in other words, the state would have taken a cut of every "Lebron dollar" spent. But no, instead they insisted on a outsize tax - a punitive one, really - on the the man who would provide their city/state with the ability to generate additional revenue by his mere existence.
But Lebron felt he shouldn't be punished for his ability to make money, and so walked away from the Big Apple. And the greedy parliament of whores that make up the state legislature have now lost a lucrative form of revenue that would have lasted for years because of their insistence on punitive taxes on the men of ability, the men who create the wealth they see fit to confiscate.
We've seen this happen before, incidentally - here's a two minute drill on how "soak the rich" economics really works:
Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."
One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.
Is there a lesson learned here? Not by liberals and Democrats, unfortunately - they're all soccer fans...
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Obama Derides The Founding Fathers...
..during an Independence Day speech:
President Obama marked the Fourth of July on Sunday at a South Lawn barbecue honoring service members and their families.
"We celebrate the principles that are timeless, tenets first declared by men of property and wealth but which gave rise to what Lincoln called a new birth of freedom in America — civil rights and voting rights, workers' rights and women's rights, and the rights of every American," Obama said from a White House balcony with first lady Michelle Obama at his side.
Men of property and wealth, said with a sneer, with the word "white" unspoken but clearly implied.
Again, the anti-American American, Barack Obama, gleefully wallows in his ignorance of his nation's history like a elderly shut-in wallows in their feces. Obviously, without these men of "wealth and property", Obama certainly would not have been free to become president of this great nation. Is it too hard for Obama to wrap his head around the fact that not all revolutions are products of the downtrodden? Or is his ideology so rigid that rather than accept the brilliant exception that was the American revolution, he must smear it and belittle it in order to fit his childishly preconceived notions?
But more importantly - does Barack Obama even remotely understand the sacrifice made by these men of "wealth and property"? Obviously not, he is not only ignorant of the facts surrounding his nation's birth, but oblivious to the spirit it takes to make a true "sacrifice", a word Barack is often heard saying but an action he is rarely seen engaging in.
In the hopes of educating our dimwitted president, let's review the fates of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, these white men of wealth and property:
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured.
Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags. T homas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.
Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged:"For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor"
Or, as Barack Obama would simply call them, with disgust: "Men of wealth and property...."
Maybe we need more men like them, and less redistributers of wealth, like Barack Obama.
Of course, this reminds me of my favorite movie, Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven", in which Big Whiskey's sheriff - Little Bill Dagget - says just prior to kicking the sh*t out of would-be assassin English Bob:
"You been talking about the Queen again? On Independence Day?!"
President Obama marked the Fourth of July on Sunday at a South Lawn barbecue honoring service members and their families.
"We celebrate the principles that are timeless, tenets first declared by men of property and wealth but which gave rise to what Lincoln called a new birth of freedom in America — civil rights and voting rights, workers' rights and women's rights, and the rights of every American," Obama said from a White House balcony with first lady Michelle Obama at his side.
Men of property and wealth, said with a sneer, with the word "white" unspoken but clearly implied.
Again, the anti-American American, Barack Obama, gleefully wallows in his ignorance of his nation's history like a elderly shut-in wallows in their feces. Obviously, without these men of "wealth and property", Obama certainly would not have been free to become president of this great nation. Is it too hard for Obama to wrap his head around the fact that not all revolutions are products of the downtrodden? Or is his ideology so rigid that rather than accept the brilliant exception that was the American revolution, he must smear it and belittle it in order to fit his childishly preconceived notions?
But more importantly - does Barack Obama even remotely understand the sacrifice made by these men of "wealth and property"? Obviously not, he is not only ignorant of the facts surrounding his nation's birth, but oblivious to the spirit it takes to make a true "sacrifice", a word Barack is often heard saying but an action he is rarely seen engaging in.
In the hopes of educating our dimwitted president, let's review the fates of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, these white men of wealth and property:
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army, another had two sons captured.
Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags. T homas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.
Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged:"For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor"
Or, as Barack Obama would simply call them, with disgust: "Men of wealth and property...."
Maybe we need more men like them, and less redistributers of wealth, like Barack Obama.
Of course, this reminds me of my favorite movie, Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven", in which Big Whiskey's sheriff - Little Bill Dagget - says just prior to kicking the sh*t out of would-be assassin English Bob:
"You been talking about the Queen again? On Independence Day?!"
"Green Eggs & Ham", Served Obama-Style
With sincere apologies to the great Theodor Seuss Geisel:
I do not like this Uncle Sam, I do not like his health care scam.
I do not like these dirty crooks, or how they lie and cook the books.
I do not like when Congress steals,
I do not like their secret deals.
I do not like this speaker Nan,
I do not like this 'YES WE CAN'.
I do not like this spending spree,
I'm smart, I know that nothing's free,
I do not like your smug replies, when I complain about your lies.
I do not like this kind of hope.
I do not like it. nope, nope, nope!
(Would Seuss be derided as a "neo-con" today? "Geisel's early political cartoons show a passionate opposition to fascism...Geisel's cartoons also called attention to the early stages of the Holocaust and denounced discrimination in America against African Americans and Jews. Geisel supported the Japanese American internment during World War II..."
And he famously said of the Japanese:
But right now, when the Japs are planting their hatchets in our skulls, it seems like a hell of a time for us to smile and warble: "Brothers!" It is a rather flabby battle cry. If we want to win, we’ve got to kill Japs, whether it depresses John Haynes Holmes or not. We can get palsy-walsy afterward with those that are left.
—Theodor Geisel, quoted in Dr. Seuss Goes to War, by Dr. Richard H. Minear
The left would crucify him, Obama would run against him, the Democrats would ban his books, and Elena Kagen would nod in assent... )
I do not like this Uncle Sam, I do not like his health care scam.
I do not like these dirty crooks, or how they lie and cook the books.
I do not like when Congress steals,
I do not like their secret deals.
I do not like this speaker Nan,
I do not like this 'YES WE CAN'.
I do not like this spending spree,
I'm smart, I know that nothing's free,
I do not like your smug replies, when I complain about your lies.
I do not like this kind of hope.
I do not like it. nope, nope, nope!
(Would Seuss be derided as a "neo-con" today? "Geisel's early political cartoons show a passionate opposition to fascism...Geisel's cartoons also called attention to the early stages of the Holocaust and denounced discrimination in America against African Americans and Jews. Geisel supported the Japanese American internment during World War II..."
And he famously said of the Japanese:
But right now, when the Japs are planting their hatchets in our skulls, it seems like a hell of a time for us to smile and warble: "Brothers!" It is a rather flabby battle cry. If we want to win, we’ve got to kill Japs, whether it depresses John Haynes Holmes or not. We can get palsy-walsy afterward with those that are left.
—Theodor Geisel, quoted in Dr. Seuss Goes to War, by Dr. Richard H. Minear
The left would crucify him, Obama would run against him, the Democrats would ban his books, and Elena Kagen would nod in assent... )
Gulf Oil Spill Conspiracy: Oily Sands Forever?
GULF SHORES, Ala. – A problem lurks under the sand on the Gulf Coast, but some argue the best thing to do is — nothing.
Walk to a seemingly pristine patch of sand, plop down in a chair and start digging with your bare feet and chances are you'll walk away with gooey tar between your toes. So far, workers hired by BP to clean oil off beaches have skimmed only the surface, using shovels or sifting machines.
Think back to Hurricane Katrina, and the demands that the city of New Orleans be rebuilt exactly as it was, regardless of cost, despite the fact that various portions of it were almost certain to be destroyed again the next time a big blow came through the Gulf. No, it had to be put back together again exactly as it was, lest you be fingered as a racist and hung from the nearest lamp-post.
What's different today? The fact that a Democrat is in charge of an inept cleanup mission? The fact that more whites will be suffering than blacks? Or the fact that more conservatives will be suffering than liberals?
Either way, can you imagine if beaches enjoyed by primarily minority populations were deemed to be useable despite the fact that they would leave tracking footprints of petroleum, tar, and oil?
It would be an outrage. Except it isn't, this time. It is "science":
George Crozier, a marine scientist and director of the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, said tourism's the only real reason to dig up the buried oil.
"Buried is buried. It will get carved up by a hurricane at some point, but I see no particular advantage to digging it up," he said. "It's a human environmental hazard only because people don't want to go to the beach if it's got tar balls on it."
So the residents of the Gulf will have lost their entire tourism trade, their fishing-based economy will be decimated, and their personal recreation space will have been destroyed. And that, apparently, is OK with the president (who hasn't mentioned the very spill he called a "top priority" in nine days and counting) and with the media, who has no sympathy for red-staters. Or white folks. Or anybody who can do anything to bring down their Dear Leader, flawed thought he may be.
And a catastrophe that was completely avoidable will wind up poisoning the Gulf for a generation, while the commander-in chief wages war against Arizona (yet another red state), in the hopes of distracting the populace from the disaster of his own creating.
He truly believes he can get away with this - especially with a compliant media's dogged support.
"Can Obama walk on water?", a starry-eyed media used to ask. The question now is...can Barack skate on slicks? For if he can't, the bad brown goo is gonna gobble him up too...
Walk to a seemingly pristine patch of sand, plop down in a chair and start digging with your bare feet and chances are you'll walk away with gooey tar between your toes. So far, workers hired by BP to clean oil off beaches have skimmed only the surface, using shovels or sifting machines.
Think back to Hurricane Katrina, and the demands that the city of New Orleans be rebuilt exactly as it was, regardless of cost, despite the fact that various portions of it were almost certain to be destroyed again the next time a big blow came through the Gulf. No, it had to be put back together again exactly as it was, lest you be fingered as a racist and hung from the nearest lamp-post.
What's different today? The fact that a Democrat is in charge of an inept cleanup mission? The fact that more whites will be suffering than blacks? Or the fact that more conservatives will be suffering than liberals?
Either way, can you imagine if beaches enjoyed by primarily minority populations were deemed to be useable despite the fact that they would leave tracking footprints of petroleum, tar, and oil?
It would be an outrage. Except it isn't, this time. It is "science":
George Crozier, a marine scientist and director of the Dauphin Island Sea Lab, said tourism's the only real reason to dig up the buried oil.
"Buried is buried. It will get carved up by a hurricane at some point, but I see no particular advantage to digging it up," he said. "It's a human environmental hazard only because people don't want to go to the beach if it's got tar balls on it."
So the residents of the Gulf will have lost their entire tourism trade, their fishing-based economy will be decimated, and their personal recreation space will have been destroyed. And that, apparently, is OK with the president (who hasn't mentioned the very spill he called a "top priority" in nine days and counting) and with the media, who has no sympathy for red-staters. Or white folks. Or anybody who can do anything to bring down their Dear Leader, flawed thought he may be.
And a catastrophe that was completely avoidable will wind up poisoning the Gulf for a generation, while the commander-in chief wages war against Arizona (yet another red state), in the hopes of distracting the populace from the disaster of his own creating.
He truly believes he can get away with this - especially with a compliant media's dogged support.
"Can Obama walk on water?", a starry-eyed media used to ask. The question now is...can Barack skate on slicks? For if he can't, the bad brown goo is gonna gobble him up too...
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
ObamaCare: Here Comes The Rationing!
Let us all say together: "Sarah Palin was RIGHT!"
Well, liberals would sooner raise a Confederate Flag (especially Robert Byrd) than admit the truth behind Palin's words - death panels are part & parcel of socialized medicine. Obama has proven her correct (again), with an appointment so revolting to the American psyche that he had to make it under the cloak of darkness (like he's passed all his key legislation):
With Congress officially on recess, President Obama will on Wednesday use his ability to make recess appointments to name one of his more controversial nominees: Donald Berwick, nominee to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
In an interview last year with Biotechnology Healthcare, Berwick said society makes decisions about rationing all the time, and that the "decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly."
Said Berwick, "The social budget is limited -- we have a limited resource pool. It makes terribly good sense to at least know the price of an added benefit, and at some point we might say nationally, regionally, or locally that we wish we could afford it, but we can’t. We have to be realistic about the knowledge base."
Berwick said the degree to which the knowledge base is "linked directly to policy and decision is a matter of choice. You could make it advisory, or you could make it mandatory, or you could make it a policy rule. But to remain ignorant of the cost implications of a drug that is marginally better than what is already out there is simply bad policy."
So forget it, if you need a marginally better drug to survive. Berwick, Lord of the Death Panel, has judged in advance it is not in society's best interest for you to carry on living. Certainly you wife and children will understand that we have a "limited resource pool", despite the fact we never had these issues before ObamaCare. And please be aware that despite our polite tone, this decision is not advisory. It is mandatory.
So die, please. Quietly, and quickly. For "society's" benefit. For we know a society who refuses to treat the sick to it's fullest capabilities is truly the most liberal one.
Welcome to ObamaCare. Welcome to our new reality. Hey, you voted for it....
Well, liberals would sooner raise a Confederate Flag (especially Robert Byrd) than admit the truth behind Palin's words - death panels are part & parcel of socialized medicine. Obama has proven her correct (again), with an appointment so revolting to the American psyche that he had to make it under the cloak of darkness (like he's passed all his key legislation):
With Congress officially on recess, President Obama will on Wednesday use his ability to make recess appointments to name one of his more controversial nominees: Donald Berwick, nominee to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).
In an interview last year with Biotechnology Healthcare, Berwick said society makes decisions about rationing all the time, and that the "decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly."
Said Berwick, "The social budget is limited -- we have a limited resource pool. It makes terribly good sense to at least know the price of an added benefit, and at some point we might say nationally, regionally, or locally that we wish we could afford it, but we can’t. We have to be realistic about the knowledge base."
Berwick said the degree to which the knowledge base is "linked directly to policy and decision is a matter of choice. You could make it advisory, or you could make it mandatory, or you could make it a policy rule. But to remain ignorant of the cost implications of a drug that is marginally better than what is already out there is simply bad policy."
So forget it, if you need a marginally better drug to survive. Berwick, Lord of the Death Panel, has judged in advance it is not in society's best interest for you to carry on living. Certainly you wife and children will understand that we have a "limited resource pool", despite the fact we never had these issues before ObamaCare. And please be aware that despite our polite tone, this decision is not advisory. It is mandatory.
So die, please. Quietly, and quickly. For "society's" benefit. For we know a society who refuses to treat the sick to it's fullest capabilities is truly the most liberal one.
Welcome to ObamaCare. Welcome to our new reality. Hey, you voted for it....
Conspiracy Wednesday: Is There Still Oil Spilling Into The Gulf?
Because you wouldn't know it based upon our president's recent comments on the crisis. For the record, Obama hasn't said a single word about the catastrophe - you know, the one that was a "top priority" - in over a week:
About three weeks ago, Obama offered a speech that was widely panned, but that declared, “in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well.” How’s that coming? USA Today: “The renegade well is gushing between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels a day, and current containment systems are catching around 25,000 barrels a day, [Thad] Allen said.” That’s a chunk, but that’s less than half of the high end number.
The president also declared, “make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes… we must make a commitment to the Gulf Coast that goes beyond responding to the crisis of the moment.”
Well, a search of Obama’s speeches on the Washington Post website reveals he has not said “BP”, “gulf” or “spill” since June 30. I realize there’s a national holiday in the past week, but it certainly is hard to believe this is still the top priority if he can go a week without even mentioning it. Back on May 27, he was insisting it was his top priority.
And that containment figure of about 40% - 70% listed above? While way short of yet another of Barack Obama's uniformed, exaggerated promises, the truth is that some days there is a lot less contained. Like the days when Obama stops the cleanup so the Coast Guard can inspect skimmers for "safety violations". Or days like...yesterday:
BP continued talking about its latest tool, A Whale, a converted oil tanker that will hopefully clean thousands of gallons of water in the Gulf of Mexico daily even though skimming boats collected only three gallons on Tuesday. That amount is from the entire coasts of Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama, which have all been affected, combined. Many boats remained docked because of high winds and rough seas left from Hurricane Alex. While disabling the cleanup crews, the rough seas have also been strong enough to push oil over containment booms and barges that were strategically placed to keep most of the crude from finding its way to shore.
Of course, if Obama had just gotten himself and his inefficient bureaucrats out of the way, a lot of this oil would not be reaching shore; it would have been skimmed off earlier, or deflected by the berms the government prevented the state of Louisiana from constructing.
Maybe Obama thinks it will all go away if he just doesn't talk about. It would fit his snippish and childish MO. And maybe he has a point, as the media has no intention of being the instrument of his destruction. This isn't Katrina, after all - it's a Democratic president we are talking about here!
But Obama's abandonment of the Gulf Coast of the United States to it's oily fate is no surprise. After all, isn't this working out just like he planned it? Blow up the BP Deepwater Horizon rig, cut back on domestic oil consumption, increase government spending on politically-connected "green energy" companies, and force cap and trade taxation down the nation's throat. And destroy a slew of Red States , as added value. Then, to distract from this diabolical act of environmental/economic destruction, declare war against the state of Arizona, a war that he knows the media will gleefully support and use to push the Gulf spill off the front pages, and hopefully out of American minds.
Gee, it almost sounds like...a conspiracy.
About three weeks ago, Obama offered a speech that was widely panned, but that declared, “in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well.” How’s that coming? USA Today: “The renegade well is gushing between 35,000 and 60,000 barrels a day, and current containment systems are catching around 25,000 barrels a day, [Thad] Allen said.” That’s a chunk, but that’s less than half of the high end number.
The president also declared, “make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes… we must make a commitment to the Gulf Coast that goes beyond responding to the crisis of the moment.”
Well, a search of Obama’s speeches on the Washington Post website reveals he has not said “BP”, “gulf” or “spill” since June 30. I realize there’s a national holiday in the past week, but it certainly is hard to believe this is still the top priority if he can go a week without even mentioning it. Back on May 27, he was insisting it was his top priority.
And that containment figure of about 40% - 70% listed above? While way short of yet another of Barack Obama's uniformed, exaggerated promises, the truth is that some days there is a lot less contained. Like the days when Obama stops the cleanup so the Coast Guard can inspect skimmers for "safety violations". Or days like...yesterday:
BP continued talking about its latest tool, A Whale, a converted oil tanker that will hopefully clean thousands of gallons of water in the Gulf of Mexico daily even though skimming boats collected only three gallons on Tuesday. That amount is from the entire coasts of Florida, Mississippi, and Alabama, which have all been affected, combined. Many boats remained docked because of high winds and rough seas left from Hurricane Alex. While disabling the cleanup crews, the rough seas have also been strong enough to push oil over containment booms and barges that were strategically placed to keep most of the crude from finding its way to shore.
Of course, if Obama had just gotten himself and his inefficient bureaucrats out of the way, a lot of this oil would not be reaching shore; it would have been skimmed off earlier, or deflected by the berms the government prevented the state of Louisiana from constructing.
Maybe Obama thinks it will all go away if he just doesn't talk about. It would fit his snippish and childish MO. And maybe he has a point, as the media has no intention of being the instrument of his destruction. This isn't Katrina, after all - it's a Democratic president we are talking about here!
But Obama's abandonment of the Gulf Coast of the United States to it's oily fate is no surprise. After all, isn't this working out just like he planned it? Blow up the BP Deepwater Horizon rig, cut back on domestic oil consumption, increase government spending on politically-connected "green energy" companies, and force cap and trade taxation down the nation's throat. And destroy a slew of Red States , as added value. Then, to distract from this diabolical act of environmental/economic destruction, declare war against the state of Arizona, a war that he knows the media will gleefully support and use to push the Gulf spill off the front pages, and hopefully out of American minds.
Gee, it almost sounds like...a conspiracy.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
ObamaCare: Here Comes The Layoffs!
Which came first, the legislation or the layoffs? Ah, sweet mysteries of life.
Actually, there's no mystery here. Opponents of Obama's health care reform always claimed that the bill would cost jobs; with the effective date drawing closer, you can start to count the job losses effective immediately. But I hope you've got one of those big calculators that gives you lots of digits:
The White Castle hamburger chain fears that a health insurance reform law adopted earlier this year will put its profits on a downward slide.
The Columbus-based family owned restaurant chain - known for serving small square hamburgers called "sliders" – says a single provision in the bill will eat up roughly 55 percent of its yearly net income after 2014.
Starting that year, the bill levies a $3,000-per-employee penalty on companies whose workers pay more than 9.5 percent of household income in premiums for company-provided insurance.
White Castle, which currently provides insurance to all of its full-time workers and picks up 70 to 89 percent of their premium costs, believes it will likely end up paying those penalties.
The financial hit will make it hard for the company to maintain its 421 restaurants, let alone create new jobs, says company spokesman Jamie Richardson. White Castle employs more than 10,000 people nationwide, and more than 1,200 in Ohio.
More:
George Ebinger of New Jersey, who owns several International House of Pancakes restaurants, says the penalties for not insuring his 140 workers will cost roughly half as much as insuring them. He figures he will have to raise prices and possibly lay off workers to come up with the $220,000 he anticipates the penalties will cost.
So that's a couple of thousand unnecessary job losses - or, if your intent is to socialize America, a small sacrifice to pay for universal(ly poor) medical care. At least, that's the way that White House Office of Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle sees it:
"I understand that they don't like it and believe it will cut into their profits, but it is a relatively small contribution to defray costs to taxpayers."
Ah, those evil corporations. This is a win-win for Nancy-Ann and her ilk - really, isn't putting the likes of White Castle and IHOP out of business part of their goal for forcing you to partake in a diet that is "government-approved"? More power for her and her cadre of bureaucrats is certainly worth the ruined lives of a few thousand fast-food employees...after all, it's not as if they are unionized or anything...
But look at the wreckage that surrounds Nancy-Ann and Barack as they take control of the private sector - jobs lost, followed by home foreclosures, followed by decreasing tax revenue in the areas where these residents/restaurants once resided, followed by further layoffs and debt, followed by the unemployed draining more treasury dollars, followed by tax increases to cover the "unexpected" losses in the transition to socialism...
Confused about why any so-called leaders would endorse such a plan?
It's about power, and the ability to dictate to others. Nancy-Ann, Barack, and Nancy P. would rather rule over a nation of paupers and peasants than be politically powerless (and thus unable to exert their whims upon the populace) in a prosperous nation.
Besides, a weakened and hungry nation is easier to control....
Nice folks we have running the show these days.
Actually, there's no mystery here. Opponents of Obama's health care reform always claimed that the bill would cost jobs; with the effective date drawing closer, you can start to count the job losses effective immediately. But I hope you've got one of those big calculators that gives you lots of digits:
The White Castle hamburger chain fears that a health insurance reform law adopted earlier this year will put its profits on a downward slide.
The Columbus-based family owned restaurant chain - known for serving small square hamburgers called "sliders" – says a single provision in the bill will eat up roughly 55 percent of its yearly net income after 2014.
Starting that year, the bill levies a $3,000-per-employee penalty on companies whose workers pay more than 9.5 percent of household income in premiums for company-provided insurance.
White Castle, which currently provides insurance to all of its full-time workers and picks up 70 to 89 percent of their premium costs, believes it will likely end up paying those penalties.
The financial hit will make it hard for the company to maintain its 421 restaurants, let alone create new jobs, says company spokesman Jamie Richardson. White Castle employs more than 10,000 people nationwide, and more than 1,200 in Ohio.
More:
George Ebinger of New Jersey, who owns several International House of Pancakes restaurants, says the penalties for not insuring his 140 workers will cost roughly half as much as insuring them. He figures he will have to raise prices and possibly lay off workers to come up with the $220,000 he anticipates the penalties will cost.
So that's a couple of thousand unnecessary job losses - or, if your intent is to socialize America, a small sacrifice to pay for universal(ly poor) medical care. At least, that's the way that White House Office of Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle sees it:
"I understand that they don't like it and believe it will cut into their profits, but it is a relatively small contribution to defray costs to taxpayers."
Ah, those evil corporations. This is a win-win for Nancy-Ann and her ilk - really, isn't putting the likes of White Castle and IHOP out of business part of their goal for forcing you to partake in a diet that is "government-approved"? More power for her and her cadre of bureaucrats is certainly worth the ruined lives of a few thousand fast-food employees...after all, it's not as if they are unionized or anything...
But look at the wreckage that surrounds Nancy-Ann and Barack as they take control of the private sector - jobs lost, followed by home foreclosures, followed by decreasing tax revenue in the areas where these residents/restaurants once resided, followed by further layoffs and debt, followed by the unemployed draining more treasury dollars, followed by tax increases to cover the "unexpected" losses in the transition to socialism...
Confused about why any so-called leaders would endorse such a plan?
It's about power, and the ability to dictate to others. Nancy-Ann, Barack, and Nancy P. would rather rule over a nation of paupers and peasants than be politically powerless (and thus unable to exert their whims upon the populace) in a prosperous nation.
Besides, a weakened and hungry nation is easier to control....
Nice folks we have running the show these days.
Gulf Oil Spill Conspiracy: The Forbidden Pictures
...and you wondered why the Obama administration has shredded the constitution in its effort to keep a news and image blackout on the increasingly disturbing situation in the Gulf of Mexico? Maybe it's to prevent you from seeing photos like these - photos that show how badly the situation in the Gulf is deteriorating while Obama and his cronies snub international aid in favor of arcane union work rules. Via Hot Air:
There's another 15 of these horror snaps at the link above...
The sane answer: they’re blithering incompetents. The paranoid answer: they’re doing it on purpose.
The sane answer: because the Obama administration has sold its soul to the unions, and is reluctant to do anything that would make union leaders angry.
The raving paranoid answer: Because Obama wants this oil spill to be dreadfully harmful, because it will sour Americans on drilling in the ocean, and on oil (and other fossil fuels) in general. Never waste a crisis, my friends, and this crisis can help lead all the troglodytes (that’s you and me) away from their accustomed gas guzzlers and wasteful lifestyles towards the paradise of “green” energy and sustainable lifestyles.
Gee, I guess only a raving paranoid would ask that question....or Stephen King.
There's another 15 of these horror snaps at the link above...
Maybe if Obama had taken some of the help offered without worrying about offending his union moneymen, and hadn't ordered the Coast Guard to deliberately slow down the operation, kids wouldn't be playing in oil slicks this summer.
No wonder the president is getting grayer on a daily basis - when he and Rahm Emanuel blew up BP Deepwater Horizon in order to turn American into a windmill-worshipping Dutch state complete with overwhelming carbon taxation, our fearless leader didn't realize how easily things could get out of hand. Now that it has, he's dancing as fast as he can, changing the facts constantly, barring the media, and attempting not to waste this self-created crisis, even as judges overturn his erratic edicts while the hopes of cap and trade legislation actually passing Congress look slimmer by the day.
And while I've been saying this has been an Obama-directed conspiracy for some time ( see here, here, here, over here, read this, and here, definitely read this, and this is somewhat related as well), others, such as the esteemed Steven Den Beste, are just getting on board...Instapundit links to Steven at the Greenroom:
And while I've been saying this has been an Obama-directed conspiracy for some time ( see here, here, here, over here, read this, and here, definitely read this, and this is somewhat related as well), others, such as the esteemed Steven Den Beste, are just getting on board...Instapundit links to Steven at the Greenroom:
Is there a different way to read the news lately?
The sane answer: they’re blithering incompetents. The paranoid answer: they’re doing it on purpose.
The sane answer: because the Obama administration has sold its soul to the unions, and is reluctant to do anything that would make union leaders angry.
The raving paranoid answer: Because Obama wants this oil spill to be dreadfully harmful, because it will sour Americans on drilling in the ocean, and on oil (and other fossil fuels) in general. Never waste a crisis, my friends, and this crisis can help lead all the troglodytes (that’s you and me) away from their accustomed gas guzzlers and wasteful lifestyles towards the paradise of “green” energy and sustainable lifestyles.
Sure, mock me, call me paranoid. Go ahead. And then try to explain why HHS is setting up mysterious, secure facilities around the Gulf with no answers given or access granted?
Gee, I guess only a raving paranoid would ask that question....or Stephen King.
Monday, July 05, 2010
Obama Descends Into Madness
How else to describe this proposal?
The government is handing out nearly $2 billion for new solar plants that President Barack Obama says will create thousands of jobs and increase the use of renewable energy sources.
Mr. Obama announced the initiative in his weekly radio and online address Saturday, saying the money is part of his plan to bring new industries to the U.S.
The two companies that will receive the money from the president's $862 billion economic stimulus are Abengoa Solar, which will build one of the world's largest solar plants in Arizona, creating 1,600 construction jobs; and Abound Solar Manufacturing, which is building plants in Colorado and Indiana. The Obama administration says those projects will create more than 2,000 construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs.
First off, let's define terms - "the government is handing out nearly $2 billion" translates as "the government is giving away nearly $2 billion dollars in taxpayer-provided money to fund a project that has been spurned by both the public and the economic markets, and is favored only by politicians who have ideological allegiance to the concept that we are a nation of eco-criminals".
OK. Now let's do the math, for as Ed Morrissey reminds us, the biggest crisis now facing our nation is that we have elected a mathematical illiterate (which explains the economic idiocy).
Obama proposes spending $2 billion to create a total of 5,100 jobs. That will cost $392,156.87 per job. That kind of money, in the private sector at least, should fund several jobs. Heck, even a government bureaucrat costs less than that; even at the Department of Transportation, that would cover two and have enough left over for a secretary.
But that’s not the only folly in this proposal. Of the 5,100 jobs Obama promises, only 1,500 of them are permanent jobs. The others are construction jobs, which will only last as long as the money flows to the project. That means we will spend over $1.3 million per “permanent” job in building this “green economy,” which looks more like a red-ink economy with even a cursory check of the numbers.
Remember this, when Obama claims to be a "deficit hawk". Remember this, when the Democrats claim only government spending can create jobs, and mock the idea of tax cuts as a job-stimulating device. How many jobs could be created or saved with $2 billion in tax cuts? We'll never know, but I can guarantee you it would be more than 1500 of them. But again, a combination of economic illiteracy combined with rigid ideology is looting our treasury and bankrupting this nation quicker than a room full of coke fiends in Las Vegas drain their bank accounts and credit lines...
Which is just about at the point we are at. Careening towards rock bottom, let by a madman with no regard for consequences. And at this rate of acceleration, I no longer believe we can brake the fall...
The government is handing out nearly $2 billion for new solar plants that President Barack Obama says will create thousands of jobs and increase the use of renewable energy sources.
Mr. Obama announced the initiative in his weekly radio and online address Saturday, saying the money is part of his plan to bring new industries to the U.S.
The two companies that will receive the money from the president's $862 billion economic stimulus are Abengoa Solar, which will build one of the world's largest solar plants in Arizona, creating 1,600 construction jobs; and Abound Solar Manufacturing, which is building plants in Colorado and Indiana. The Obama administration says those projects will create more than 2,000 construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs.
First off, let's define terms - "the government is handing out nearly $2 billion" translates as "the government is giving away nearly $2 billion dollars in taxpayer-provided money to fund a project that has been spurned by both the public and the economic markets, and is favored only by politicians who have ideological allegiance to the concept that we are a nation of eco-criminals".
OK. Now let's do the math, for as Ed Morrissey reminds us, the biggest crisis now facing our nation is that we have elected a mathematical illiterate (which explains the economic idiocy).
Obama proposes spending $2 billion to create a total of 5,100 jobs. That will cost $392,156.87 per job. That kind of money, in the private sector at least, should fund several jobs. Heck, even a government bureaucrat costs less than that; even at the Department of Transportation, that would cover two and have enough left over for a secretary.
But that’s not the only folly in this proposal. Of the 5,100 jobs Obama promises, only 1,500 of them are permanent jobs. The others are construction jobs, which will only last as long as the money flows to the project. That means we will spend over $1.3 million per “permanent” job in building this “green economy,” which looks more like a red-ink economy with even a cursory check of the numbers.
Remember this, when Obama claims to be a "deficit hawk". Remember this, when the Democrats claim only government spending can create jobs, and mock the idea of tax cuts as a job-stimulating device. How many jobs could be created or saved with $2 billion in tax cuts? We'll never know, but I can guarantee you it would be more than 1500 of them. But again, a combination of economic illiteracy combined with rigid ideology is looting our treasury and bankrupting this nation quicker than a room full of coke fiends in Las Vegas drain their bank accounts and credit lines...
Which is just about at the point we are at. Careening towards rock bottom, let by a madman with no regard for consequences. And at this rate of acceleration, I no longer believe we can brake the fall...
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Patriotism is a beautiful thing....
....and there are so many different ways to express it....
"Sure I wave the American flag. Do you know a better flag to wave? Sure I love my country with all her faults. I'm not ashamed of that, never have been, never will be."
- John Wayne
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” ~Declaration of Independence
"I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in providence, for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth."
Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of Liberty.
- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Let the Fourth of July always be a reminder that here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights; that government is only a convenience created and managed by the people, with no powers of its own except those voluntarily granted to it by the people. We sometimes forget that great truth, and we never should.”
—Ronald Reagan
“The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage.” ~Thucydides
Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right…and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers.
~John Adams (1735–1826)
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
~Thomas Jefferson
"Hail! Independence, hail! Heaven's next best gift, To that of life and an immortal soul!"
- James Thomson
"I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery."
-Author Unknown
If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.
- Thomas Paine
“Better to starve free than be a fat slave” ~ Aesop
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others.
-John Stuart Mill
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. ~Thomas Paine
“Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom” – Albert Einstein
"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~ Patrick Henry
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." ~ Mark Twain
"Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people." ~ Abraham Lincoln
"There, I guess King George will be able to read that."
-- John Hancock, after signing the Declaration of Independence
The body politic is not panicking, even though the news is dire -- because it knows, somehow, that this too shall pass. America has faced worse times and weathered them. Even within our memory, it has had other leaders who also misunderstood their mandates and offered solutions to the nation's problems that only exacerbated them.
The body politic learns from its mistakes and uses its power to correct them. Taken as a whole, this bunch of rubes and dupes and boobs shows a remarkably commonsensical approach to these things by saying, in essence:
Nothing is irreversible. Change is possible.
The political message of July 4, 2010 that is looking increasingly like a harbinger of doom for the man who popularized it two years ago is simply this:
Yes, we can.
Finally, via Robert Stacy McCain, I bring you thoughts on one of the most important freedoms our forefathers fought to establish with their Revolution - the freedom to strike it rich, and not have it appropriated from you at gunpoint:
The principle that what you produce belongs to you and you have the absolute right to dispose of it as you wish is the cornerstone of all the wealth and wonders created in America for well over 230 years...Economic freedom is the first, and most important freedom we have. From it stems all the others...
Wealth does not simply appear from the thin air. It has to be created by human beings who act out of their own self-interest and have the freedom to create as much as they desire. That’s the only way it works. Without that freedom, wealth dries up and we end up like Zimbabwe.
You'll have to click the link to see the rest....
God, I love my country!!!
"Sure I wave the American flag. Do you know a better flag to wave? Sure I love my country with all her faults. I'm not ashamed of that, never have been, never will be."
- John Wayne
The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind
-Thomas Paine
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” ~Declaration of Independence
"I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in providence, for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth."
Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of Liberty.
- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Let the Fourth of July always be a reminder that here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights; that government is only a convenience created and managed by the people, with no powers of its own except those voluntarily granted to it by the people. We sometimes forget that great truth, and we never should.”
—Ronald Reagan
“The secret of happiness is freedom. The secret of freedom is courage.” ~Thucydides
Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right…and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers.
~John Adams (1735–1826)
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
~Thomas Jefferson
"Hail! Independence, hail! Heaven's next best gift, To that of life and an immortal soul!"
- James Thomson
"I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery."
-Author Unknown
If there must be trouble let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.
- Thomas Paine
“Better to starve free than be a fat slave” ~ Aesop
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others.
-John Stuart Mill
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. ~Thomas Paine
“Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom” – Albert Einstein
"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~ Patrick Henry
In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." ~ Mark Twain
"Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people." ~ Abraham Lincoln
I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery. ~Author Unknown
"There, I guess King George will be able to read that."
-- John Hancock, after signing the Declaration of Independence
Ill leave you with one more thought, courtesy of John Podhoretz, who speaks of how a certain president is tearing our country apart, and why we - as a people, as a nation - are neither rioting nor being called to armed insurrection:
The body politic is not panicking, even though the news is dire -- because it knows, somehow, that this too shall pass. America has faced worse times and weathered them. Even within our memory, it has had other leaders who also misunderstood their mandates and offered solutions to the nation's problems that only exacerbated them.
The body politic learns from its mistakes and uses its power to correct them. Taken as a whole, this bunch of rubes and dupes and boobs shows a remarkably commonsensical approach to these things by saying, in essence:
Nothing is irreversible. Change is possible.
The political message of July 4, 2010 that is looking increasingly like a harbinger of doom for the man who popularized it two years ago is simply this:
Yes, we can.
Finally, via Robert Stacy McCain, I bring you thoughts on one of the most important freedoms our forefathers fought to establish with their Revolution - the freedom to strike it rich, and not have it appropriated from you at gunpoint:
The principle that what you produce belongs to you and you have the absolute right to dispose of it as you wish is the cornerstone of all the wealth and wonders created in America for well over 230 years...Economic freedom is the first, and most important freedom we have. From it stems all the others...
Wealth does not simply appear from the thin air. It has to be created by human beings who act out of their own self-interest and have the freedom to create as much as they desire. That’s the only way it works. Without that freedom, wealth dries up and we end up like Zimbabwe.
I hope you enjoyed our serving of 4th of July quotations, with a side of "cheesecake". Have a happy, safe , and wonderful Independence Day!
May God Bless America...and Rule 5!
May God Bless America...and Rule 5!
UPDATE: More beautiful displays of patriotism abound at Nation of Cowards , Mind Numbed Robot has a bikini roundup, Theo, as always, shares a few beauties, and The Camp of the Saints brings us an original - patriotic chicks with....swords? A sample:
You'll have to click the link to see the rest....
God, I love my country!!!
Friday, July 02, 2010
How out of touch is Barack Obama?
...I might as well ask how far Earth is from the innermost rings of Saturn.
What was Obama's latest teleprompter reading about? Oh yeah, immigration, and the need to ignore Arizona's laws, and the importance of demonizing the Republican party. If I understood it correctly.
How high up on the list of American's concerns is immigration right now? Via a FOX/Opinion Dynamics poll:
Four percent of registered voters describe “immigration” as “the most important for the president to be working on right now.” The economy was at 32 percent, 14 percent the oil spill, 12 percent the deficit, 6 percent health care, 6 percent Iraq and Afghanistan.
Of course, immigration reform might actually be the easiest item to deal with on that little list, especially with a majority Congress which stands willing to grant citizenship to 11 million potential Democratic voters. So naturally that's what Obama wants to work on next. Leaves him more time to get rid of that slicing problem he's been dealing with on the back nine...
Delegating is easy for this president. Actually rolling up his sleeves, getting his hands dirty, and putting himself on the line? Above his pay grade, I fear....
But remember - this isn't about what we want our chief executive to do - it's about what he feels like doing...to us, not for us...
What was Obama's latest teleprompter reading about? Oh yeah, immigration, and the need to ignore Arizona's laws, and the importance of demonizing the Republican party. If I understood it correctly.
How high up on the list of American's concerns is immigration right now? Via a FOX/Opinion Dynamics poll:
Four percent of registered voters describe “immigration” as “the most important for the president to be working on right now.” The economy was at 32 percent, 14 percent the oil spill, 12 percent the deficit, 6 percent health care, 6 percent Iraq and Afghanistan.
Of course, immigration reform might actually be the easiest item to deal with on that little list, especially with a majority Congress which stands willing to grant citizenship to 11 million potential Democratic voters. So naturally that's what Obama wants to work on next. Leaves him more time to get rid of that slicing problem he's been dealing with on the back nine...
Delegating is easy for this president. Actually rolling up his sleeves, getting his hands dirty, and putting himself on the line? Above his pay grade, I fear....
But remember - this isn't about what we want our chief executive to do - it's about what he feels like doing...to us, not for us...
New Jersey's Anna Little Wins "Ten Bucks Friday"
....thanks to your support in the poll posted on this website and many others....
Right Klik and Maggie's Notebook - the prime movers behind this fun and affordable grassroots effort, fill us in on our winner and how to throw our $10- towards tea party darlin' Anna Little (taking on the detestable and well-funded Frank Pallone (D) in NJ-6 this fall):
Anna Little reached out to Ten Buck Fridays supporters for support, and she surely got it. Running away with 42% of the vote in a ten-way race, Little is the hands-down victor in this week's Ten Buck Fridays fundraising poll.
TBF bloggers and supporters can be very proud of their support for this phenomenal candidate.
This week, we had a great lineup of conservative candidates, but I want to encourage everyone who voted in the TBF poll this week to rally behind the winner with a $10 donation. Some have an expressed a desire to give to multiple candidates, and that, of course, is strongly encouraged. (And don't forget, every week brings another winner.)
Anna Little is an ideal candidate for a TBF money bomb. She won the GOP primary despite a 10:1 financial disadvantage. Think about that: A $10 donation to the Little campaign could pack a $100 punch!
Warning: Anna Little is facing a well-funded Democratic incumbent. She and her supporters really need our help.
With our assistance, Anna, just like Chris Christie, can win in NJ-6.
Donate to Anna Little here.
*Don't forget to label your donation "Ten Buck Fridays!"
Right Klik and Maggie's Notebook - the prime movers behind this fun and affordable grassroots effort, fill us in on our winner and how to throw our $10- towards tea party darlin' Anna Little (taking on the detestable and well-funded Frank Pallone (D) in NJ-6 this fall):
Anna Little reached out to Ten Buck Fridays supporters for support, and she surely got it. Running away with 42% of the vote in a ten-way race, Little is the hands-down victor in this week's Ten Buck Fridays fundraising poll.
TBF bloggers and supporters can be very proud of their support for this phenomenal candidate.
This week, we had a great lineup of conservative candidates, but I want to encourage everyone who voted in the TBF poll this week to rally behind the winner with a $10 donation. Some have an expressed a desire to give to multiple candidates, and that, of course, is strongly encouraged. (And don't forget, every week brings another winner.)
Anna Little is an ideal candidate for a TBF money bomb. She won the GOP primary despite a 10:1 financial disadvantage. Think about that: A $10 donation to the Little campaign could pack a $100 punch!
Warning: Anna Little is facing a well-funded Democratic incumbent. She and her supporters really need our help.
With our assistance, Anna, just like Chris Christie, can win in NJ-6.
Donate to Anna Little here.
*Don't forget to label your donation "Ten Buck Fridays!"
That last part is key - let's make sure the candidates know that this campaign is "paying"dividends!
And don't forget to drop $10- in Anna's hat before you take off for the beach this weekend, lest Frank Pallone get re-elected and declare July 4th to be an "international day of mourning"...
...our ticket to White House Victory ?
W.S. Merwin: The Perfect Poet Laureate...
....for the Obama administration. In other words, a Bush-hating anti-American American. Via First Thoughts, we get a glimpse of some of his writings on George W. Bush:
It would not have been possible for me ever to trust someone who acquired office by the shameful means Mr. Bush and his abettors resorted to in the last presidential election. His nonentity was rapidly becoming more apparent than ever when the catastrophe of September 11, 2001, provided him and his handlers with a role for him, that of “wartime leader,” which they, and he in turn, were quick to exploit. This role was used at once to silence all criticism of the man and his words as unpatriotic, and to provide the auspices for a sustained assault upon civil liberties, environmental protections and general welfare.
The perpetuation of this role of “wartime leader” is the primary reason—more important even than the greed for oilfields and the wish to blot out his father’s failure—for the present determination to visit war upon Iraq, kill and maim countless people, and antagonize much of the world of which Mr. Bush had not heard until recently.
Sounds like something a college freshman would write to please a leftist Poli-Sci professor. Actually, it sounds like something that could come out of Barack Obama's mouth at his next speech.
And it sounds as if the president has selected the perfect poet laureate to fit his vision (described here as arising from his deeply held anti-imperialist, pacifist, and environmentalist beliefs) of what the United States of America was, in the years Before Obama....
The rest of us can only hang our heads in shame, and count down the days until November of 2012...
It would not have been possible for me ever to trust someone who acquired office by the shameful means Mr. Bush and his abettors resorted to in the last presidential election. His nonentity was rapidly becoming more apparent than ever when the catastrophe of September 11, 2001, provided him and his handlers with a role for him, that of “wartime leader,” which they, and he in turn, were quick to exploit. This role was used at once to silence all criticism of the man and his words as unpatriotic, and to provide the auspices for a sustained assault upon civil liberties, environmental protections and general welfare.
The perpetuation of this role of “wartime leader” is the primary reason—more important even than the greed for oilfields and the wish to blot out his father’s failure—for the present determination to visit war upon Iraq, kill and maim countless people, and antagonize much of the world of which Mr. Bush had not heard until recently.
Sounds like something a college freshman would write to please a leftist Poli-Sci professor. Actually, it sounds like something that could come out of Barack Obama's mouth at his next speech.
And it sounds as if the president has selected the perfect poet laureate to fit his vision (described here as arising from his deeply held anti-imperialist, pacifist, and environmentalist beliefs) of what the United States of America was, in the years Before Obama....
The rest of us can only hang our heads in shame, and count down the days until November of 2012...
Thursday, July 01, 2010
MSNBC Anchor Alex Witt Gets The "Obama Chills..."
...it's the first sign of a delusion fever. Check out the video:
ALEX WITT: You know, Mark, I gotta say I got a few chills listening to him there. It was very powerful. But it was also pretty heavy on detail and direction.
Really? Gee, Alex, it seems like Obama speech came under criticism from almost every corner for...lacking detail and direction:
Sure, I expected most of it to consist of the usual clichés, and I wasn’t disappointed: “false debates that divide us,” we can’t deport 11 million people, illegals will be “required to register” (in the new, focus-grouped terminology), and even Emma Lazarus. But news? Nope. No announcement of a new legislative package. No details on a bill about to be dropped. No unilateral grant of amnesty. The speech was just one more effort at stringing the open-borders folks along while trying to blame the Republicans for not helping the Democrats pass an amnesty.
Tunku Varadarajan feels that Barack hit new heights...of banality:
Speaking at the American University Thursday, the president began by patting himself on the back for his administration's achievements to date, all attained "despite the forces of the status quo": health care, Wall Street reform, and—wait for this—"accelerating the transition to a clean economy." Immigration reform, he indicated, ought to be next, and he gave us a civics lesson on the nature of our society, the centrality of immigrants and immigration, and the tensions that exist between our being "a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants."
The speech was basically a thing of sops....
And this gives Alex Witt chills? Love isn't only blind, it's insanely stupid....
ALEX WITT: You know, Mark, I gotta say I got a few chills listening to him there. It was very powerful. But it was also pretty heavy on detail and direction.
Really? Gee, Alex, it seems like Obama speech came under criticism from almost every corner for...lacking detail and direction:
Sure, I expected most of it to consist of the usual clichés, and I wasn’t disappointed: “false debates that divide us,” we can’t deport 11 million people, illegals will be “required to register” (in the new, focus-grouped terminology), and even Emma Lazarus. But news? Nope. No announcement of a new legislative package. No details on a bill about to be dropped. No unilateral grant of amnesty. The speech was just one more effort at stringing the open-borders folks along while trying to blame the Republicans for not helping the Democrats pass an amnesty.
Tunku Varadarajan feels that Barack hit new heights...of banality:
Speaking at the American University Thursday, the president began by patting himself on the back for his administration's achievements to date, all attained "despite the forces of the status quo": health care, Wall Street reform, and—wait for this—"accelerating the transition to a clean economy." Immigration reform, he indicated, ought to be next, and he gave us a civics lesson on the nature of our society, the centrality of immigrants and immigration, and the tensions that exist between our being "a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants."
The speech was basically a thing of sops....
And this gives Alex Witt chills? Love isn't only blind, it's insanely stupid....
Gulf Oil Spill Conspiracy: What The F*ck Is HHS Up To In The Gulf?
OK, for a change, it's not me inventing a crazy oil-spill conspiracy. It's freakin' PBS, for God's sake. And they have stumbled upon a mystery and a government roadblock in oil-spill country that seems right out of the X-Files:
It has been virtually impossible to get any information about the federal mobile medical unit in the fishing town of Venice, La. The glorified double-wide trailer sits on a spit of newly graveled land known to some as the "BP compound." Ringed with barbed wire-topped chain link fencing, it's tightly restricted by police and private security guards.
The government, in a press release, claims that the facility maintains "a medical team from the HHS National Disaster Medical System...", and nothing untoward. So why not talk to the media - friendly media, no less?
For over two weeks, my NewsHour colleagues and I reached out to media contacts at HHS, the U.S. Coast Guard and everyone listed as a possible media contact for BP, in an attempt to visit the unit and get a general sense of how many people were being treated there , who they were and what illnesses they had. We got nowhere. It was either "access denied," or no response at all. It was something that none of us had ever encountered while covering a disaster...
Maybe because there is nothing ordinary about this disaster; or maybe it is, to use Janet Napolitano's term, a "man made disaster"?
More strange behavior by BP and your government:
...we heard from local fisherman Acy Cooper, vice president of the Louisiana Shrimp Association, and others in Venice that only those contracted by BP for cleanup operations are allowed to seek treatment at the mobile unit. Cooper also told us anyone seeking treatment was pre-screened by a private company hired by BP -- Acadian Ambulance Services.
Eventually PBS finally got some answers, for whatever they were worth:
...I finally got some answers from Ron Burger, the Medical Unit Operations Chief for HHS's National Disaster Medical System, who spoke with me by phone from Venice. He confirmed that only responders were being treated at the mobile unit. When I asked him why residents weren't being seen there he responded: "I can't answer that" ...
If this is just a first-aid station for first responders, why the need for the secrecy and the barb-wire compound? Why refuse to see locals? Are they afraid they might catch something that the HHS doesn't want us to know about, or see something the government doesn't want us to know about?
Odd, very odd indeed. And as I said yesterday, just as I was about to throw all my conspiracy theories out the window, a lot of interesting things blew inside instead....
It has been virtually impossible to get any information about the federal mobile medical unit in the fishing town of Venice, La. The glorified double-wide trailer sits on a spit of newly graveled land known to some as the "BP compound." Ringed with barbed wire-topped chain link fencing, it's tightly restricted by police and private security guards.
The government, in a press release, claims that the facility maintains "a medical team from the HHS National Disaster Medical System...", and nothing untoward. So why not talk to the media - friendly media, no less?
For over two weeks, my NewsHour colleagues and I reached out to media contacts at HHS, the U.S. Coast Guard and everyone listed as a possible media contact for BP, in an attempt to visit the unit and get a general sense of how many people were being treated there , who they were and what illnesses they had. We got nowhere. It was either "access denied," or no response at all. It was something that none of us had ever encountered while covering a disaster...
Maybe because there is nothing ordinary about this disaster; or maybe it is, to use Janet Napolitano's term, a "man made disaster"?
More strange behavior by BP and your government:
...we heard from local fisherman Acy Cooper, vice president of the Louisiana Shrimp Association, and others in Venice that only those contracted by BP for cleanup operations are allowed to seek treatment at the mobile unit. Cooper also told us anyone seeking treatment was pre-screened by a private company hired by BP -- Acadian Ambulance Services.
Eventually PBS finally got some answers, for whatever they were worth:
...I finally got some answers from Ron Burger, the Medical Unit Operations Chief for HHS's National Disaster Medical System, who spoke with me by phone from Venice. He confirmed that only responders were being treated at the mobile unit. When I asked him why residents weren't being seen there he responded: "I can't answer that" ...
If this is just a first-aid station for first responders, why the need for the secrecy and the barb-wire compound? Why refuse to see locals? Are they afraid they might catch something that the HHS doesn't want us to know about, or see something the government doesn't want us to know about?
Odd, very odd indeed. And as I said yesterday, just as I was about to throw all my conspiracy theories out the window, a lot of interesting things blew inside instead....
Newsweek To Remain A Liberal Magazine...
....so fear not, waiting-room denizens and septuagenarians!
So attached is the Washington Post to its liberal dogma that they are refusing to even consider bids from media conglomerates that have a conservative bent:
WITH a 5 p.m. Thursday deadline approaching for the final round of bids, at least two people were preparing to make offers for Newsweek while two others were told by the magazine’s owners that their bids would not be considered.
The Washington Post Company, which put the magazine up for sale in May after efforts to stem its financial losses failed, has rejected overtures from the owners of Newsmax, the monthly conservative magazine, and Thane Ritchie, an Illinois hedge fund manager, according to people familiar with the bidding who spoke anonymously because the process is intended to be confidential.
With no shortage of interested parties, the issue for the Post Company has become whether it can find a new owner that the company’s chairman and chief executive, Donald E. Graham, believes will be a suitable steward for the magazine.
That is the main reason the Post Company decided not to entertain offers from Newsmax or Mr. Ritchie, according to these people. The conservative political ideology of Newsmax’s chief executive, Christopher Ruddy, is at odds with the editorial bent of Newsweek, which strives to be apolitical in its news coverage though is often criticized as left-leaning.
And Mr. Ritchie, who unsuccessfully tried to buy the Sun Times Media Group last year, is viewed as more libertarian in his political views....
Wow. I wonder how much money the WaPo is willing to lose on this deal by strictly refusing to consider bids by suitors who are more ideologically diverse than they are?
In business circles, taking a lesser bid under these circumstances would be a sin, and perhaps a crime, especially as the object for sale is already some $50 million-plus in the red.
But perhaps there is another, "political" reason here, that goes beyond strict ideology. Consider:
With the failing state of the newspaper business and the mainstream media in general, their CEOs have been looking more and more frequently for a Washington bailout of their industry, one that would allow them to continue pushing their liberal viewpoint via an expired medium without having to be concerned about free market forces rejecting them.
Now, if the Post sold Newsweek to Newsmax, which then turned it into a high profile conservative megaphone, well...what would the Obama administration have to say about that, when the Washington Post executive board comes crawling to D.C., tin cup in hand? Something like, "No bailout for you!", perhaps.
Interesting to watch the effect of a thugocracy and crony capitalism in effect. The Washington Post is willing to lose money on a deal in order to sell their magazine to an organization that is guaranteed to be friendly to the party in power, so that they will have chips to cash in when it comes time to ask for the government to provide them with taxpayer dollars to continue running a media operations whose style and substance has been rejected by the public.
I think the phrase "free press", when it comes to America, no longer applies. But shockingly, and in a way that could not be readily foreseen, they have chosen to willingly submit themselves to government control - further, they are willing to even pre-censor themselves and their business operation in order to ingratiate themselves to the very people their duties call to keep in check.
I know this word has lost all meaning, but...wow. Unbelievable.
So attached is the Washington Post to its liberal dogma that they are refusing to even consider bids from media conglomerates that have a conservative bent:
WITH a 5 p.m. Thursday deadline approaching for the final round of bids, at least two people were preparing to make offers for Newsweek while two others were told by the magazine’s owners that their bids would not be considered.
The Washington Post Company, which put the magazine up for sale in May after efforts to stem its financial losses failed, has rejected overtures from the owners of Newsmax, the monthly conservative magazine, and Thane Ritchie, an Illinois hedge fund manager, according to people familiar with the bidding who spoke anonymously because the process is intended to be confidential.
With no shortage of interested parties, the issue for the Post Company has become whether it can find a new owner that the company’s chairman and chief executive, Donald E. Graham, believes will be a suitable steward for the magazine.
That is the main reason the Post Company decided not to entertain offers from Newsmax or Mr. Ritchie, according to these people. The conservative political ideology of Newsmax’s chief executive, Christopher Ruddy, is at odds with the editorial bent of Newsweek, which strives to be apolitical in its news coverage though is often criticized as left-leaning.
And Mr. Ritchie, who unsuccessfully tried to buy the Sun Times Media Group last year, is viewed as more libertarian in his political views....
Wow. I wonder how much money the WaPo is willing to lose on this deal by strictly refusing to consider bids by suitors who are more ideologically diverse than they are?
In business circles, taking a lesser bid under these circumstances would be a sin, and perhaps a crime, especially as the object for sale is already some $50 million-plus in the red.
But perhaps there is another, "political" reason here, that goes beyond strict ideology. Consider:
With the failing state of the newspaper business and the mainstream media in general, their CEOs have been looking more and more frequently for a Washington bailout of their industry, one that would allow them to continue pushing their liberal viewpoint via an expired medium without having to be concerned about free market forces rejecting them.
Now, if the Post sold Newsweek to Newsmax, which then turned it into a high profile conservative megaphone, well...what would the Obama administration have to say about that, when the Washington Post executive board comes crawling to D.C., tin cup in hand? Something like, "No bailout for you!", perhaps.
Interesting to watch the effect of a thugocracy and crony capitalism in effect. The Washington Post is willing to lose money on a deal in order to sell their magazine to an organization that is guaranteed to be friendly to the party in power, so that they will have chips to cash in when it comes time to ask for the government to provide them with taxpayer dollars to continue running a media operations whose style and substance has been rejected by the public.
I think the phrase "free press", when it comes to America, no longer applies. But shockingly, and in a way that could not be readily foreseen, they have chosen to willingly submit themselves to government control - further, they are willing to even pre-censor themselves and their business operation in order to ingratiate themselves to the very people their duties call to keep in check.
I know this word has lost all meaning, but...wow. Unbelievable.
Happy July
...just wanted to use the first post of the new month to thanks all my readers (both friend and foe) for a most excellent June, which topped all my previous traffic records (with visits more than doubled from June 2009).
Of course, July is typically a lighter month for me, as I tend to take some time sans laptop down at the Shore, along with the occasional fishing excursion or two. So much for momentum!
Stick with me, when you can as well. I'll be posting enough when I'm in town...if Barack Obama thinks he's going slip something past the Jerseynut just because it's summertime, well - he's in for yet another rude awakening.
And again - thank you.
Of course, July is typically a lighter month for me, as I tend to take some time sans laptop down at the Shore, along with the occasional fishing excursion or two. So much for momentum!
Stick with me, when you can as well. I'll be posting enough when I'm in town...if Barack Obama thinks he's going slip something past the Jerseynut just because it's summertime, well - he's in for yet another rude awakening.
And again - thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)