Remember the good old days of President Bush, when every allegation of torture, from foreign-based aid groups to the scuzziest terrorist fighter, where considered sancrosant and reported as due fact?
Well, Obama promised change, and the media is here to deliver it. Note the Reuters headline below (also used by the Washington Post):
Red Cross report describes "torture" at CIA jails
Now in Bush's day, those scare quotes (a pair of quotation marks used to emphasize a word or phrase, especially to express doubt OR to indicate that it is not the authors preferred terminology) were nonexistent, becuase we all know Bush was worse than Hitler and torture was how he got his tax cuts passsed, not to mention how he "protected" this nation...right?
But under Obama? This all ended the day he took his oath! Of course the headline writers at Reuters feel serious "doubt"! But just to make sure, let's throw in one more word that never appeared under the Bush administration:
The account of alleged physical and psychological brutality inside CIA prisons overseas also states that some U.S. practices amounted to "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," the newspaper reported.
Funny how, even thought these alleged acts took place while Bush was president, the media has now changed its way of reporting the story. Fear of accidentally smearing Obama, perhaps? Hey, better cautious then politically incorrect - let's dust off the scare quotes and hey - where did we leave the word "allegedly"? Someone look at the bottom of my desk drawer!
Change the media wants us - desperately wants us -to believe in.
วันจันทร์, มีนาคม 16, 2552
วันอาทิตย์, มีนาคม 15, 2552
New Jersey: Sticking Its Nose South of the Bikini Line
No, this is not the Mad Mullahs of Iran we're talking about, or the backwards Lords of the Talliban, either. We're talking about a group of individuals more extreme, more controlling, further backwards,and much, much less intelligent:
We are talking about the political appointees manning the state's Board of Cosmetology and Hairstyling.
Attention, men of New Jersey: You may have seen your last a beautiful, thong-wearing, perfectly-groomed lady sunning herself on a Jersey beach.
In the future -if they're from Jersey - that perfect grooming may become an issue:
Things could get hairy in New Jersey this summer for women who sport revealing bikinis or a little bit less.
The painful Brazilian wax and its intimate derivatives are in danger of being stripped from salon and spa menus if a recent proposal to ban genital waxing is passed by the state's Board of Cosmetology and Hairstyling.
Cherry Hill salon owner Linda Orsuto said that women would "go ballistic" if the proposal passed....
Is it possible that the state wants to lock up the bikini-waxing trade for itself? A theory:
Orsuto said that the proposal may be the state's way of diverting a long-established salon procedure "perfected by aestheticians" to the medical community, where hair can be removed via laser treatment by dermatologists.
"We've been doing it for years," she said. "We know what we're doing."
Is this an attempt a puritinism, or a power grab of the female gentalia by the Sate of New Jersey?
Sweet Jeebus...and they say Republicans were the ones with their noses in our bedrooms!!
We are talking about the political appointees manning the state's Board of Cosmetology and Hairstyling.
Attention, men of New Jersey: You may have seen your last a beautiful, thong-wearing, perfectly-groomed lady sunning herself on a Jersey beach.
In the future -if they're from Jersey - that perfect grooming may become an issue:
Things could get hairy in New Jersey this summer for women who sport revealing bikinis or a little bit less.
The painful Brazilian wax and its intimate derivatives are in danger of being stripped from salon and spa menus if a recent proposal to ban genital waxing is passed by the state's Board of Cosmetology and Hairstyling.
Cherry Hill salon owner Linda Orsuto said that women would "go ballistic" if the proposal passed....
Is it possible that the state wants to lock up the bikini-waxing trade for itself? A theory:
Orsuto said that the proposal may be the state's way of diverting a long-established salon procedure "perfected by aestheticians" to the medical community, where hair can be removed via laser treatment by dermatologists.
"We've been doing it for years," she said. "We know what we're doing."
Is this an attempt a puritinism, or a power grab of the female gentalia by the Sate of New Jersey?
Sweet Jeebus...and they say Republicans were the ones with their noses in our bedrooms!!
วันเสาร์, มีนาคม 14, 2552
David Brooks as a Second-Rate Saruman
For those not schooled in Ring-lore, a bit about the traitorous Saruman:
Saruman the White was the Chief of the Order of Wizards. He was wise and powerful, but he was also proud and he became corrupted by desire for the One Ring and was ensnared by the will of Sauron.
Saruman the White was the Chief of the Order of Wizards. He was wise and powerful, but he was also proud and he became corrupted by desire for the One Ring and was ensnared by the will of Sauron.
Around the year 3000, Saruman began to use the palantir (a "seeing stone"). At first, Saruman may have seen visions of far-off places or events, but eventually he came in contact with another palantir which was held in the Dark Tower by Sauron.
Saruman's integrity had been weakened by the abandonment of his moral principles in his quest for power, and he was thus vulnerable to domination by the superior will of Sauron. Before long, Saruman felt compelled to report to Sauron via the palantir.
Saruman captures the wise and good Gandalf, and tries to convince him to join with him, to fight along Sauron, in order to eventually rule the world themselves, and rule it wisely, as only wizards could. His treachery, as proposed to Gandalf:
"A new Power is rising.. . This then is one choice before you, before us. We may join with that Power. It would be wise, Gandalf. There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will
be rich reward for those that aided it.As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it."
We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order; all the things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends. There need not be, there would not be, any real change in our designs, only in our means."
Which brings us to David Brooks, so-called "conservative" voice of the New York Times. An early ship-jumper to the Obama Nation, he admitted in a recent column that he was "forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was", and threatened to lead an army of moderates to oppose the Obama agenda.
What happened next? Well, let's have Brooks tell us:
On Tuesday, I wrote that the Obama budget is a liberal, big government document that should make moderates nervous. It was not so popular inside the White House. Within a day, I had conversations with four senior members of the administration...
And what happened after that? Well, nothing is more profitable to a "journalist" than access to the halls of power, so what we get? Column after column of Obama-worship, rivaled only by the chill racing up Chris Matthews' leg - via NewBusters:
The earlier urge to challenge the Obama administration was replaced by strange new respect...we see the final stage in the "re-education" of David Brooks. Outright declarations of love for The One.
Such as subsequent statements by Brooks, like this one about Obama and education:
He’s naturally inclined to be data driven. There’s reason to think that this week’s impressive speech will be followed by real and potentially historic action.
Which is exactly the opposite of what Brooks was saying a mere week earlier - that he was naturally inclined to be driven by liberal ideology. After all, he gives great speech! And we all know that historic action follows a great speech, right?
Brooks - like Saruman - is seduced by power, or even the idea of having access to it and perhaps a small bit of influence over it. For his chance to rub elbows with Sauron (whoops, I meant Obama) he will do his new master's bidding - forsaking a lifetime of principles and ethics, and misleading as many Amercian citizens as he can reach within his fading medium. Perhaps, he believes as Saruman did - that his pwer will grow with the "New Power" that is rising...
What will become of Brooks? Likely what become of Saruman - defeated, professionally destroyed, morally desitute, and bitterly, bitterly angry.
Listen to the last words of the doomed wizard, before being stabbed to death by his long-abused lackey:
" ..... And now I must go hence in bitterness, in debt to your mercy. I hate it and you! Well, I go and I will trouble you no more. But do not expect me to wish you heatlh and long life. You will have niether. But that is not my doing. I merely foretell."
And we foretell too, an eventual inglorious end to the career of David Brooks. Like Saruman, he choose the temptation of power over the the hard, lonely road of character and truth.
There is always a price to pay for that choice.
" ..... And now I must go hence in bitterness, in debt to your mercy. I hate it and you! Well, I go and I will trouble you no more. But do not expect me to wish you heatlh and long life. You will have niether. But that is not my doing. I merely foretell."
And we foretell too, an eventual inglorious end to the career of David Brooks. Like Saruman, he choose the temptation of power over the the hard, lonely road of character and truth.
There is always a price to pay for that choice.
Hope and Change !
Expect the Democrats to enact the most corrupt socialist revolution in world history (and yes, I am aware that's saying a lot). Based on the behavior of the party in power (which grows more vile by the day) and what we are seeing forming around the capitol, well folks - you ain't seen nothing yet:
The number of groups contributing money to presidential and congressional candidates has soared to an all-time high with their strongest growth in a generation, reflecting the fervor over last year's presidential race and a desire for access and clout when lawmakers tackle upcoming issues.
Many of the new political action committees created last year reflect the types of issues President Barack Obama and Congress, now largely controlled by Democrats, hope to tackle this year.
And so Amercian society will be remade - with doors held open, hands outstretched, and big bags of money with $$ signs on them changing hands.
Tea party protests? "Never heard of 'em", smirked the lawmaker...
The number of groups contributing money to presidential and congressional candidates has soared to an all-time high with their strongest growth in a generation, reflecting the fervor over last year's presidential race and a desire for access and clout when lawmakers tackle upcoming issues.
Many of the new political action committees created last year reflect the types of issues President Barack Obama and Congress, now largely controlled by Democrats, hope to tackle this year.
And so Amercian society will be remade - with doors held open, hands outstretched, and big bags of money with $$ signs on them changing hands.
Tea party protests? "Never heard of 'em", smirked the lawmaker...
วันศุกร์, มีนาคม 13, 2552
Obama's Poll Numbers: Worse Than Bush?
Finding it hard to reconcile the grumbling you hear all around you with the media's reports that Barack Obama is enjoying "record levels of public support"? Well, as Ayn Rand noted in Atlas Shrugged, contradictions do not exist in reality. Check your premises, one of them must be faulty.
Or, of course, some of your information might just be...misinformation. From today's Wall Street Journal:
It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration.
Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001.
Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.
A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives.
So not only is Obama not "historically popular", the truth is that he and his policies are historically unpopular. Worse than George Bush's at a similar point in time, and that was after what the media still refers to as his "incredibly polarizing" 2000 election victory.
Amazing. The media, should it somehow serve their purposes, would report a "beautiful sunny day" when in fact, despite the sunshine, the temperature outside was -40 degrees.
More on the lack of confidence in the Obama regime:
Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse. Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.
Seems like the American people are smarter than their leadership when it comes to economics, which is a worrying trend. One, because it leads to the conclusions that we are being lead by self-serving incompetents in a time of great national peril, and two, it leads people to believe that the government is essentially tuning them out and doing what it wants to do to help itself, and not the people they are supposed to be serving.
Loss of faith in government (as it is demanding more and more money from its citizens to grow itself while the rest of the world shrinks) combined with a media that refuses to tell the truth about it can lead to a usurping of some of our democratic institutions, to say the least.
Maybe it's time for our leaders to lead. Maybe it's time for Americans to vote them out. Maybe it's time for the media to start telling it as it is.
These polls are reflective of all that. Expect the downward trend to continue. One hopes our institutions can survive the fall.
UPDATE: Happier note: Notice how the Dow is rising as Obama's approval levels are sinking? Interesting correlation there...
Or, of course, some of your information might just be...misinformation. From today's Wall Street Journal:
It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration.
Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001.
Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.
A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives.
So not only is Obama not "historically popular", the truth is that he and his policies are historically unpopular. Worse than George Bush's at a similar point in time, and that was after what the media still refers to as his "incredibly polarizing" 2000 election victory.
Amazing. The media, should it somehow serve their purposes, would report a "beautiful sunny day" when in fact, despite the sunshine, the temperature outside was -40 degrees.
More on the lack of confidence in the Obama regime:
Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse. Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.
Seems like the American people are smarter than their leadership when it comes to economics, which is a worrying trend. One, because it leads to the conclusions that we are being lead by self-serving incompetents in a time of great national peril, and two, it leads people to believe that the government is essentially tuning them out and doing what it wants to do to help itself, and not the people they are supposed to be serving.
Loss of faith in government (as it is demanding more and more money from its citizens to grow itself while the rest of the world shrinks) combined with a media that refuses to tell the truth about it can lead to a usurping of some of our democratic institutions, to say the least.
Maybe it's time for our leaders to lead. Maybe it's time for Americans to vote them out. Maybe it's time for the media to start telling it as it is.
These polls are reflective of all that. Expect the downward trend to continue. One hopes our institutions can survive the fall.
UPDATE: Happier note: Notice how the Dow is rising as Obama's approval levels are sinking? Interesting correlation there...
Polls: Corzine To Get Ass Kicked
This is good news for anyone who has hope of rescuing the People's State Of New Jersey from its long descent into socialist night:
New Jersey’s Democratic Governor Jon S. Corzine, who hopes to win a second term in November, has now fallen behind Republican challenger Christopher J. Christie by 15 points – 49% to 34%. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters in the state shows that seven percent (7%) prefer some other candidate, and 10% are undecided.
Corzine trails another potential GOP challenger, former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan, 43% to 35%, while seven percent (7%) like another candidate and 15% are not sure whom they prefer. New Jersey Republicans will chose a candidate to run against Corzine in a primary on June 2.
"There are no good numbers for Gov. Jon Corzine in this poll, and since it was taken before his Draconian budget was released, his numbers could be even worse today," Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said in the release accompanying the poll.
The strong desire of New Jerseyans to see anyone else but Corzine in the state house has to be taken as a good sign. He will be hard pressed, at the very least, to win a second term. No cakewalkm despite his millions, and he will have lots of 'splaining to do to the voters of New Jersey along the way.
Yes, it's early yet, but...one can still dream, right?
Hat tip: Save Jersey
New Jersey’s Democratic Governor Jon S. Corzine, who hopes to win a second term in November, has now fallen behind Republican challenger Christopher J. Christie by 15 points – 49% to 34%. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters in the state shows that seven percent (7%) prefer some other candidate, and 10% are undecided.
Corzine trails another potential GOP challenger, former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan, 43% to 35%, while seven percent (7%) like another candidate and 15% are not sure whom they prefer. New Jersey Republicans will chose a candidate to run against Corzine in a primary on June 2.
"There are no good numbers for Gov. Jon Corzine in this poll, and since it was taken before his Draconian budget was released, his numbers could be even worse today," Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, said in the release accompanying the poll.
The strong desire of New Jerseyans to see anyone else but Corzine in the state house has to be taken as a good sign. He will be hard pressed, at the very least, to win a second term. No cakewalkm despite his millions, and he will have lots of 'splaining to do to the voters of New Jersey along the way.
Yes, it's early yet, but...one can still dream, right?
Hat tip: Save Jersey
วันพฤหัสบดี, มีนาคม 12, 2552
Anti-Semitism: Now Mainstream in America!
...and you can thank President Barack Obama, who studies at the feet of uber-racist Reverend Wright, for helping to spread this poison throughout America.
Spread it? He freebased it by allowing the repulsive Chas Freeman to stand for co-ordinator of the National Intelligence Council - the man who filters all intelligence that goes before the president. Freeman, a raging anti-semite, was forced to step down after mounting opposition to his appoinment became apparent.
He reacted true to form: By blaming the Jews. His resignation letter is breathtaking:
I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country
The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.
American Jews are "The Lobby", capitalized. They are an "unscrupulous people". Nice.
Is this 21 century America, or Germany circa 1939? Remember, Obama wanted this man - a anti-semite unmatched in public life - to control the intelligence information of the United States. Why?
Actually, the answer is easy - Obama and Freeman share a common belief about Jews - one learned them at the feet of a racist preacher, the other learned them at the feet of his Saudi masters.
But it doesn't end here, oh no. The media - much like the German press of the 30's - jumps in front of the Obama administration, and echos Freeman's beliefs. The worst of the lot is Joe Klein of Time magazine:
He pins his departure on “the Israel Lobby,” which is imprecise. He was the victim of a mob, not a lobby. The mob was composed primarily of Jewish neoconservatives–abetted by less than courageous public servants like Senator Chuck Schumer, who has publicly taken credit for the hit….The thugs have taken out Chas Freeman. They will not rest. Their real target is you, Mr. President.
It is a race war, declares Klein - Jewish neocons (all sixteen of us) looking to bring the black man down, and Klein's liberal paradise along with it. The fact that 78%of American Jews voted for Barack Obama escapes Klein, who won't let facts get in the way of his new blood libel.
Freeman goes down? Blame the Jews. The stock market crash? Blame the Jews. The banking implosions? Well, we all know which peope have an unholy love of money...
The rise of Obama may signal the end of the Golden Age of Judiasm in America. For a century, the Jews had at last found a place where they could live, worship, and mingle in peace. Barack Obama appears to be ready to change all that, and Chas Freeman will only be his first attempt. It hasn't been a total failure, as the media is now chanting the Jewish libel better than Freeman ever could.
The battle may have been lost, but tactical ground was gained against American Jews. "Unscrupulous", "mobs", with a "passionate attachment to a foreign country" (read: traitors).
Obama smiles. After all, he needs a scapegoat - the "Blame Bush" meme can only last so long - and the Jews have served so well in that role for so many socialist regimes....
Spread it? He freebased it by allowing the repulsive Chas Freeman to stand for co-ordinator of the National Intelligence Council - the man who filters all intelligence that goes before the president. Freeman, a raging anti-semite, was forced to step down after mounting opposition to his appoinment became apparent.
He reacted true to form: By blaming the Jews. His resignation letter is breathtaking:
I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country
The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.
American Jews are "The Lobby", capitalized. They are an "unscrupulous people". Nice.
Is this 21 century America, or Germany circa 1939? Remember, Obama wanted this man - a anti-semite unmatched in public life - to control the intelligence information of the United States. Why?
Actually, the answer is easy - Obama and Freeman share a common belief about Jews - one learned them at the feet of a racist preacher, the other learned them at the feet of his Saudi masters.
But it doesn't end here, oh no. The media - much like the German press of the 30's - jumps in front of the Obama administration, and echos Freeman's beliefs. The worst of the lot is Joe Klein of Time magazine:
He pins his departure on “the Israel Lobby,” which is imprecise. He was the victim of a mob, not a lobby. The mob was composed primarily of Jewish neoconservatives–abetted by less than courageous public servants like Senator Chuck Schumer, who has publicly taken credit for the hit….The thugs have taken out Chas Freeman. They will not rest. Their real target is you, Mr. President.
It is a race war, declares Klein - Jewish neocons (all sixteen of us) looking to bring the black man down, and Klein's liberal paradise along with it. The fact that 78%of American Jews voted for Barack Obama escapes Klein, who won't let facts get in the way of his new blood libel.
Freeman goes down? Blame the Jews. The stock market crash? Blame the Jews. The banking implosions? Well, we all know which peope have an unholy love of money...
The rise of Obama may signal the end of the Golden Age of Judiasm in America. For a century, the Jews had at last found a place where they could live, worship, and mingle in peace. Barack Obama appears to be ready to change all that, and Chas Freeman will only be his first attempt. It hasn't been a total failure, as the media is now chanting the Jewish libel better than Freeman ever could.
The battle may have been lost, but tactical ground was gained against American Jews. "Unscrupulous", "mobs", with a "passionate attachment to a foreign country" (read: traitors).
Obama smiles. After all, he needs a scapegoat - the "Blame Bush" meme can only last so long - and the Jews have served so well in that role for so many socialist regimes....
วันพุธ, มีนาคม 11, 2552
Scary. Amoral. Grotesque. Cynical.
"Never Waste A Crisis!"
...the mantra of the administration. From Barack Obama to Raul Emanuel to Hillary Clinton - they chant it with a smirk, knowing full well what it means to them.
Jonah Goldberg tells us what it means to him:
I’m trying to come to terms with Rule No. 1 of the Obama administration.“Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste” ....
Numerous commentators, including me, have pointed to this never-waste-a-crisis mantra as evidence that Obama’s budget priorities are a great ideological bait-and-switch. He says he wants to fix the financial crisis, but he’s focusing on selling his longstanding liberal agenda on health care, energy, and education as the way to do it, even though his proposals have absolutely nothing to do with addressing the housing and toxic-debt problems that are the direct causes of our predicament
But those policies aren’t the real scandal, even though they’re bad enough. The real scandal is that this administration thinks crises are opportunities for governmental power grabs...
But the White House tactic isn’t funny at all. It’s scary. Its amorality is outweighed only by the grotesque and astoundingly naked cynicism of it all.
Harsh, but appropriate, especially in the light of the passing of the abomination known as the Omnibus Spending Bill :
The massive measure funding federal agencies through the fall contains nearly 8,000 pet projects, known as earmarks and denounced by critics as pork.
...Obama planned to sign the bill quietly rather than in public. He declined to answer a shouted reporters' question about why.
Running for president, Obama denounced the many pet projects as wasteful and open to abuse — and vowed to rein them in.
Cynical. And grotesque. Meet Barack Obama and the Democrats.
...the mantra of the administration. From Barack Obama to Raul Emanuel to Hillary Clinton - they chant it with a smirk, knowing full well what it means to them.
Jonah Goldberg tells us what it means to him:
I’m trying to come to terms with Rule No. 1 of the Obama administration.“Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste” ....
Numerous commentators, including me, have pointed to this never-waste-a-crisis mantra as evidence that Obama’s budget priorities are a great ideological bait-and-switch. He says he wants to fix the financial crisis, but he’s focusing on selling his longstanding liberal agenda on health care, energy, and education as the way to do it, even though his proposals have absolutely nothing to do with addressing the housing and toxic-debt problems that are the direct causes of our predicament
But those policies aren’t the real scandal, even though they’re bad enough. The real scandal is that this administration thinks crises are opportunities for governmental power grabs...
But the White House tactic isn’t funny at all. It’s scary. Its amorality is outweighed only by the grotesque and astoundingly naked cynicism of it all.
Harsh, but appropriate, especially in the light of the passing of the abomination known as the Omnibus Spending Bill :
The massive measure funding federal agencies through the fall contains nearly 8,000 pet projects, known as earmarks and denounced by critics as pork.
...Obama planned to sign the bill quietly rather than in public. He declined to answer a shouted reporters' question about why.
Running for president, Obama denounced the many pet projects as wasteful and open to abuse — and vowed to rein them in.
Cynical. And grotesque. Meet Barack Obama and the Democrats.
The Smoldering Wreckage That Is New Jersey
Jon Corzine, staring down the barrell of New Jersey's long-time-coming fiscal meltdown, sees a way he can fix it. On the back of the middle class. By taxing the living sh*t out of them:
The Corzine $1.5 billion tax hike plan:
-Raise property taxes $500 million by eliminating rebates for anyone who earns over $75,000 a year.
-Raise property taxes ANOTHER $400 million by eliminating the property tax deduction from NJ Income Taxes (by the way, Obama wants to eliminate the deduction from your federal tax too!)
-Raise income taxes $380 million
-$80 million in increased business taxes
-$48 million tax hike on cigarettes, alcohol and wine
-$30 million in increased motor vehicle fees
How about cutting spending? Ah, no, actually, he expanded it:
..he eliminated no program.
He did not make the workforce smaller. He left state government, and its bureaucracy, largely intact.
In essence, the governor chose the bureaucracy over the taxpayer. Particularly, the property taxpayer who earns more than $75,000 a year
And not only did he not cut programs – he decided to go ahead and expand preschool education, even though he can only do so because he got money to do so from the federal government. And what happens next year if the feds don’t pony up another $2 billion or so to bail out his budget?
Exactly. It’s the property taxpayer who’ll once again take it in the bulls-eye.
And what politician does this remind you of?
Sometimes, our governor’s arrogance – for there really is no other word for it – floors us.
He stood up there today, lecturing us on how he preserved his progressive values in this budget, without seeing the irony of how he shifted the cost of his bureaucracy onto the property taxpayer.
Possible November opponent Chris Christie ties ex-Wall Street god Corzine to both the meltdown in New York and New Jersey:
The Wall Street philosophy of spend now, borrow now and pay later has driven New Jersey to be unaffordable for its people.
Corzine hopes they still have enough money to gamble:
Adding Powerball to the list of lottery games in which New Jersey participates, generating about $10 million. New Jersey would become the first state to participate in two multistate lottery games.
Classy. Milk the lower classes with yet another get-rich-quick scam. That's progressive politics for you, Jersey-style...
The Corzine $1.5 billion tax hike plan:
-Raise property taxes $500 million by eliminating rebates for anyone who earns over $75,000 a year.
-Raise property taxes ANOTHER $400 million by eliminating the property tax deduction from NJ Income Taxes (by the way, Obama wants to eliminate the deduction from your federal tax too!)
-Raise income taxes $380 million
-$80 million in increased business taxes
-$48 million tax hike on cigarettes, alcohol and wine
-$30 million in increased motor vehicle fees
How about cutting spending? Ah, no, actually, he expanded it:
..he eliminated no program.
He did not make the workforce smaller. He left state government, and its bureaucracy, largely intact.
In essence, the governor chose the bureaucracy over the taxpayer. Particularly, the property taxpayer who earns more than $75,000 a year
And not only did he not cut programs – he decided to go ahead and expand preschool education, even though he can only do so because he got money to do so from the federal government. And what happens next year if the feds don’t pony up another $2 billion or so to bail out his budget?
Exactly. It’s the property taxpayer who’ll once again take it in the bulls-eye.
And what politician does this remind you of?
Sometimes, our governor’s arrogance – for there really is no other word for it – floors us.
He stood up there today, lecturing us on how he preserved his progressive values in this budget, without seeing the irony of how he shifted the cost of his bureaucracy onto the property taxpayer.
Possible November opponent Chris Christie ties ex-Wall Street god Corzine to both the meltdown in New York and New Jersey:
The Wall Street philosophy of spend now, borrow now and pay later has driven New Jersey to be unaffordable for its people.
Corzine hopes they still have enough money to gamble:
Adding Powerball to the list of lottery games in which New Jersey participates, generating about $10 million. New Jersey would become the first state to participate in two multistate lottery games.
Classy. Milk the lower classes with yet another get-rich-quick scam. That's progressive politics for you, Jersey-style...
วันอังคาร, มีนาคม 10, 2552
Senator Menendez, the Spending Bill, and the Fine Print
Well, as we predicted last week, it appears as if Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) will fall into line behind the Democrat's pork-laden $410 billion dollar Omnibus Spending Bill, after forcing a delay due to language that will change the US-Cuba relationship. No suprise there.
But it was interesting to hear Menendez's (D-La Raza) complaints about the way Obama and his minions go about their business of forcing change down everyone's throat. The Washington Post reports:
Menendez knew that his hard-line approach to Cuba was a minority view within his party, and that it was at odds with Obama's approach. But he did not expect to discover a significant policy change embedded in the text on an appropriations bill. His policy aides came across the language when the legislation was posted on a congressional Web site.
"The process by which these changes have been forced upon this body is so deeply offensive to me, and so deeply undemocratic, that it puts the omnibus appropriations package in jeopardy, in spite of all the other tremendously important funding that this bill would provide," the enraged son of Cuban immigrants said last week on the Senate floor.
Menendez has pointed out that, had the bill sought significant changes in U.S. policy toward Iran or Venezuela, lawmakers would revolt. "What's the difference with Cuba?" said Menendez spokesman Afshin Mohamadi.
Valid point, Afshin. The difference is that you will likely get a tweak in the language, because right or wrong, you are a Democrat. Were Menendez (D - Illegal Immigrants) a Republican, no matter how right he was, he would be laughed out of Reid's office, and made a public figure of scorn by Robert Gibbs in his next news conference.
Will Menendez (D-Hispanic Jerseyans) fight to keep future fine-print undemocratic Obama ploys out of major spending bills? Or only the ones thay offend the .01% of New Jersey that he actively represents?
But it was interesting to hear Menendez's (D-La Raza) complaints about the way Obama and his minions go about their business of forcing change down everyone's throat. The Washington Post reports:
Menendez knew that his hard-line approach to Cuba was a minority view within his party, and that it was at odds with Obama's approach. But he did not expect to discover a significant policy change embedded in the text on an appropriations bill. His policy aides came across the language when the legislation was posted on a congressional Web site.
"The process by which these changes have been forced upon this body is so deeply offensive to me, and so deeply undemocratic, that it puts the omnibus appropriations package in jeopardy, in spite of all the other tremendously important funding that this bill would provide," the enraged son of Cuban immigrants said last week on the Senate floor.
Menendez has pointed out that, had the bill sought significant changes in U.S. policy toward Iran or Venezuela, lawmakers would revolt. "What's the difference with Cuba?" said Menendez spokesman Afshin Mohamadi.
Valid point, Afshin. The difference is that you will likely get a tweak in the language, because right or wrong, you are a Democrat. Were Menendez (D - Illegal Immigrants) a Republican, no matter how right he was, he would be laughed out of Reid's office, and made a public figure of scorn by Robert Gibbs in his next news conference.
Will Menendez (D-Hispanic Jerseyans) fight to keep future fine-print undemocratic Obama ploys out of major spending bills? Or only the ones thay offend the .01% of New Jersey that he actively represents?
KILL That Golden Goose !
How's this for "fairness"? It turns out that out of New York City's 8 million people, 50% of it's income taxes are paid by a total of 41,000 of its residents. The other 50% is paid by the remaining 7,959,000 residents.
So in this time of economic turmoil, when these residents are the ones whose income will be most desperately needed to keep the city afloat, what does the Council do?
They do everything in their power to chase these golden geese away:
Officials later provided figures showing that 1 percent of taxpayers, or 41,282 filers earning $500,000 or more, paid 47.8 percent of the $7.3 billion collected by the city in income taxes.
The top half percent, or 19,387 filers with $1 million or more in taxable income, accounted for 40.6 percent.
Those in the upper income brackets face a potential double-whammy this year.
Council Speaker Christine Quinn has proposed boosting the city's income tax from 3.65 to 4.25 percent for those earning at least $297,000; to 4.45 percent for folks making $532,000 and to 4.65 percent for the $1.2 million league and above.
At the same time, there's a movement in Albany to raise the state income tax from 6.85 percent to 8.25 percent for people making a minimum of $250,000; 8.97 percent for those making $500,000 and above in taxable income and 10.3 percent for those at the $1-million-and-up level.
One voice of sanity, who will undoubtly go unheard:
Mark Page, the city's budget director, testified at a City Council budget hearing.
"You don't need to lose many of them before ending up with less money than you had before you increased the tax."
But the looters and the wealth-spreaders don't understand that; they want to taketaketake, assuming that the rich have an endless supply of cash, and that they'll just keep generating more and more monies for the government's usage, no matter what penalties are placed upon them for their productive abilities.
I think certain people - not the least Barack Obama - have a steep learning curve ahead...
So in this time of economic turmoil, when these residents are the ones whose income will be most desperately needed to keep the city afloat, what does the Council do?
They do everything in their power to chase these golden geese away:
Officials later provided figures showing that 1 percent of taxpayers, or 41,282 filers earning $500,000 or more, paid 47.8 percent of the $7.3 billion collected by the city in income taxes.
The top half percent, or 19,387 filers with $1 million or more in taxable income, accounted for 40.6 percent.
Those in the upper income brackets face a potential double-whammy this year.
Council Speaker Christine Quinn has proposed boosting the city's income tax from 3.65 to 4.25 percent for those earning at least $297,000; to 4.45 percent for folks making $532,000 and to 4.65 percent for the $1.2 million league and above.
At the same time, there's a movement in Albany to raise the state income tax from 6.85 percent to 8.25 percent for people making a minimum of $250,000; 8.97 percent for those making $500,000 and above in taxable income and 10.3 percent for those at the $1-million-and-up level.
One voice of sanity, who will undoubtly go unheard:
Mark Page, the city's budget director, testified at a City Council budget hearing.
"You don't need to lose many of them before ending up with less money than you had before you increased the tax."
But the looters and the wealth-spreaders don't understand that; they want to taketaketake, assuming that the rich have an endless supply of cash, and that they'll just keep generating more and more monies for the government's usage, no matter what penalties are placed upon them for their productive abilities.
I think certain people - not the least Barack Obama - have a steep learning curve ahead...
What Warren Buffet really said about Barack Obama
Warren Buffett really teed off on Barack OBama the other day, and the media - who, when Buffet farts, usually reports on the strenght and smell - pretty much ignored his criticism of the president while focusing on his concerns about the economy.
Selective editing by his cadres in the media is unsuprising at this point. But you can get some of the good stuff here:
BUFFETT: ...And, Joe, it--if you're in a war, and we really are on an economic war, there's a obligation to the majority to behave in ways that don't go around inflaming the minority. If on December 8th when--maybe it's December 7th, when Roosevelt convened Congress to have a vote on the war, he didn't say, `I'm throwing in about 10 of my pet projects ...
And you can't expect people to unite behind you if you're trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throat . So I would--I would absolutely say for the--for the interim, till we get this one solved, I would not be pushing a lot of things that are--you know are contentious, and I also--I also would do no finger-pointing whatsoever. I would--you know, I would not say, you know, `George'--`the previous administration got us into this.' Forget it. I mean, you know, the Navy made a mistake at Pearl Harbor and had too many ships there. But the idea that we'd spend our time after that, you know, pointing fingers at the Navy, we needed the Navy.
I don't think anybody on December 7th would have said a `war is a terrible thing to waste, and therefore we're going to try and ram through a whole bunch of things...
Buffet is one of the smartest men in the world. Of course, when he is critical of President Obama, there is no need for the nation to hear his words, right? After all, isn' t that the job of the media now - protecting Democratic politicans from their constituents?
Selective editing by his cadres in the media is unsuprising at this point. But you can get some of the good stuff here:
BUFFETT: ...And, Joe, it--if you're in a war, and we really are on an economic war, there's a obligation to the majority to behave in ways that don't go around inflaming the minority. If on December 8th when--maybe it's December 7th, when Roosevelt convened Congress to have a vote on the war, he didn't say, `I'm throwing in about 10 of my pet projects ...
And you can't expect people to unite behind you if you're trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throat . So I would--I would absolutely say for the--for the interim, till we get this one solved, I would not be pushing a lot of things that are--you know are contentious, and I also--I also would do no finger-pointing whatsoever. I would--you know, I would not say, you know, `George'--`the previous administration got us into this.' Forget it. I mean, you know, the Navy made a mistake at Pearl Harbor and had too many ships there. But the idea that we'd spend our time after that, you know, pointing fingers at the Navy, we needed the Navy.
I don't think anybody on December 7th would have said a `war is a terrible thing to waste, and therefore we're going to try and ram through a whole bunch of things...
Buffet is one of the smartest men in the world. Of course, when he is critical of President Obama, there is no need for the nation to hear his words, right? After all, isn' t that the job of the media now - protecting Democratic politicans from their constituents?
วันจันทร์, มีนาคม 09, 2552
The Curious Case of Barack Obama and the Stock Market
The Dow is down another 60 and falling at this writing, and there's a lot of interesting stuff out there about the relationship of Barack Obama's policies to one the greatest market free-falls we've been privvy to in the last 100+ years.
Let's talk some history, shall we? Under Obama's plans to rape the private sector to fund his socialistic expansion of American government, we have seen the market react thusly:
** The stock market had its worst January in 113 years.
** This was followed by the worst February for the stock market since 1933.
** And, the Dow has dropped faster under Obama than any other new president in 90 years.
Check out the following video - "Neil Cavuto pointed out that the media was big on Carter but Wall Street wasn't and Wall Street turned out to be right. The media was not big on Reagan but Wall Street was and again Wall Street turned out to be right. And now, the media is Obama's lapdog but Wall Street doesn't like what Obama is showing them":
The Dow is not going to rise anytime soon... why should it, when:
-higher taxes on corporations will lower profits-the "cap-and-trade" emissions proposal will curtail profits, and add an invisible "energy tax" to every product purchased or created.
-higher prices will make it harder for consumers to purchase goods and services, thus lowering demand.
-higher taxes on those making over $200K - who account for the largets majority of this nation's disposable income - will force them to cut back on spending, thus again reducing demand.
-eventually, Obama will have to tax the middle class to pay for his entitlements and health care "reform", thus further lowering discretionary spending.
Does Obama get this? Does he understand wealth creation at all, or only wealth distribution? Does he realize that almost the entire non-union working class is counting on a 401(k) plan to live on after retirement, or has a life lived on the assurance of a government pension blinded him to that fact?
There are many who believe that the president just doesn't get it:
Some Wall Street economists think President Obama could have voiced some sympathy about the plight of frightened shareholders when he compared the stock market's plunge to an election tracking poll that "bobs up and down, day to day."
They worry that the president is underestimating the important role the stock market plays in the economy's performance, and that the markets' precipitous slide is actually a vote of no confidence in the administration's handling of the economy. There's also a suspicion that Mr. Obama and his advisers think only wealthy people own stocks...
Here's another number that is starting a slow sink to the bottom that may yet become a "precipitous slide"...Obama's approval ratings:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 38% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President....Thirty-two percent (32%) now Strongly Disapprove of the President’s performance, the highest level of disapproval measured to date. These figures give Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of +6, his lowest rating to date...
A large number of voters have a lot "emotionally" invested in Barack Obama, believing his election cleansed their souls of any remainders of the "original sin" of slavery, or feverently believed his "change" would be for the better. These people will cling for a while longer, but as reality begins to set in on what our new president is doing and what his final destination is, expect to see some serious slides in his approval ratings in the future. Equivilent to some of those 300 point Dow drops we've been seeing.
Except, of course, when Obama sees his poll numbers dropping, he'll take it a bit more seriously than the plunging Dow. After all, the poll numbers are all about power. His.
Let's talk some history, shall we? Under Obama's plans to rape the private sector to fund his socialistic expansion of American government, we have seen the market react thusly:
** The stock market had its worst January in 113 years.
** This was followed by the worst February for the stock market since 1933.
** And, the Dow has dropped faster under Obama than any other new president in 90 years.
Check out the following video - "Neil Cavuto pointed out that the media was big on Carter but Wall Street wasn't and Wall Street turned out to be right. The media was not big on Reagan but Wall Street was and again Wall Street turned out to be right. And now, the media is Obama's lapdog but Wall Street doesn't like what Obama is showing them":
The Dow is not going to rise anytime soon... why should it, when:
-higher taxes on corporations will lower profits-the "cap-and-trade" emissions proposal will curtail profits, and add an invisible "energy tax" to every product purchased or created.
-higher prices will make it harder for consumers to purchase goods and services, thus lowering demand.
-higher taxes on those making over $200K - who account for the largets majority of this nation's disposable income - will force them to cut back on spending, thus again reducing demand.
-eventually, Obama will have to tax the middle class to pay for his entitlements and health care "reform", thus further lowering discretionary spending.
Does Obama get this? Does he understand wealth creation at all, or only wealth distribution? Does he realize that almost the entire non-union working class is counting on a 401(k) plan to live on after retirement, or has a life lived on the assurance of a government pension blinded him to that fact?
There are many who believe that the president just doesn't get it:
Some Wall Street economists think President Obama could have voiced some sympathy about the plight of frightened shareholders when he compared the stock market's plunge to an election tracking poll that "bobs up and down, day to day."
They worry that the president is underestimating the important role the stock market plays in the economy's performance, and that the markets' precipitous slide is actually a vote of no confidence in the administration's handling of the economy. There's also a suspicion that Mr. Obama and his advisers think only wealthy people own stocks...
Here's another number that is starting a slow sink to the bottom that may yet become a "precipitous slide"...Obama's approval ratings:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 38% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President....Thirty-two percent (32%) now Strongly Disapprove of the President’s performance, the highest level of disapproval measured to date. These figures give Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of +6, his lowest rating to date...
A large number of voters have a lot "emotionally" invested in Barack Obama, believing his election cleansed their souls of any remainders of the "original sin" of slavery, or feverently believed his "change" would be for the better. These people will cling for a while longer, but as reality begins to set in on what our new president is doing and what his final destination is, expect to see some serious slides in his approval ratings in the future. Equivilent to some of those 300 point Dow drops we've been seeing.
Except, of course, when Obama sees his poll numbers dropping, he'll take it a bit more seriously than the plunging Dow. After all, the poll numbers are all about power. His.
Another Monday in Obamaland....
...and as another grim morning arises in the Land of The One, one can only hope he still sleeping....
Dow Futures are down 108 points, S&P down 12. And it's early yet....
Warren Buffet, only the most brilliant investor in America, has these reassuring words for us:
Buffett said Monday during a live appearance on CNBC that current economic turmoil has basically followed the worst-case scenario he envisioned.
"It's fallen off a cliff," Buffett said. "Not only has the economy slowed down a lot, but people have really changed their habits like I haven't seen."
"What is required is a commander in chief that's looked at like a commander in chief in a time of war," Buffett said.
Sorry, that's not likely. Barack Obama is tired, so we all must be extra quiet:
Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been “overwhelmed” by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.
Allies of Mr Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president’s surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk....
And speaking of that "Commander in Chief" thing:
A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama’s inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to “even fake an interest in foreign policy”.
The American source said: “Obama is overwhelmed....
Wow, being president is tougher that being a community organizer? Who'd have thunk it?
Is it his sleepiness that is a direct causation of his cluelessness? Obama is mocked by Reuters, policy analysts, and goat herders:
U.S. President Barack Obama's proposal to reach out to moderate Taliban will fail to end the Afghan insurgency as it is inflexible Taliban leaders who are orchestrating the war, not moderates, analysts said.
"Where are the so-called moderate Taliban? Who are the moderate Taliban?" asked Mozhdah, who was an official in both the Taliban and the Karzai governments.
'Moderate Taliban' is like 'moderate killer'. Is there such a thing?," asked writer and analyst Qaseem Akhgar.
Go back to sleep, Barack. You only make things worse when you're awake...
Dow Futures are down 108 points, S&P down 12. And it's early yet....
Warren Buffet, only the most brilliant investor in America, has these reassuring words for us:
Buffett said Monday during a live appearance on CNBC that current economic turmoil has basically followed the worst-case scenario he envisioned.
"It's fallen off a cliff," Buffett said. "Not only has the economy slowed down a lot, but people have really changed their habits like I haven't seen."
"What is required is a commander in chief that's looked at like a commander in chief in a time of war," Buffett said.
Sorry, that's not likely. Barack Obama is tired, so we all must be extra quiet:
Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been “overwhelmed” by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.
Allies of Mr Obama say his weary appearance in the Oval Office with Mr Brown illustrates the strain he is now under, and the president’s surprise at the sheer volume of business that crosses his desk....
And speaking of that "Commander in Chief" thing:
A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama’s inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to “even fake an interest in foreign policy”.
The American source said: “Obama is overwhelmed....
Wow, being president is tougher that being a community organizer? Who'd have thunk it?
Is it his sleepiness that is a direct causation of his cluelessness? Obama is mocked by Reuters, policy analysts, and goat herders:
U.S. President Barack Obama's proposal to reach out to moderate Taliban will fail to end the Afghan insurgency as it is inflexible Taliban leaders who are orchestrating the war, not moderates, analysts said.
"Where are the so-called moderate Taliban? Who are the moderate Taliban?" asked Mozhdah, who was an official in both the Taliban and the Karzai governments.
'Moderate Taliban' is like 'moderate killer'. Is there such a thing?," asked writer and analyst Qaseem Akhgar.
Go back to sleep, Barack. You only make things worse when you're awake...
วันอาทิตย์, มีนาคม 08, 2552
Weekend Tea Partys: The Revolution Cometh !
And to think, liberals always thought they would be the stylists of the revolution, to be the ones to storm the halls of power and overthrow the vainglorious and corrupt. No, they were never smart enough to (or were always to stoned to) pull it off.
Along with a "few hundred" in Harrisburg, PA. Michelle Malkin has some great pictures - "Chains You Can Believe In", indeed! 
Obama - by law - may last four years, but his Democratic yes-men (and women) have a much shorter political lifespan....
When the middle class rises in America - that's a revolution, folks. 15,000 came out in Fullerton, California:
The bottom pic is a pile of Governor Terminator discs and tapes, shortly to be smashed and burned. That's what happens, heretic...
We saw a few hundred in Kansas City:
Along with a "few hundred" in Harrisburg, PA. Michelle Malkin has some great pictures - "Chains You Can Believe In", indeed!
Finally, Pork Revolution shows us pictures from a crowd of over 500 people in Green Bay. Check out the crowd storming over the bridge:
Obama - by law - may last four years, but his Democratic yes-men (and women) have a much shorter political lifespan....
วันเสาร์, มีนาคม 07, 2552
In a Nutshell...
...here's how Obamanomics works:
The point is that Obama's rhetoric about shared sacrifice is bogus on every level. He tells people they are the upright ones for supporting his policies, when what he's actually saying is that he's taking from the rich and giving it to them. "Shared sacrifice" really means taking other people's money; "greed" is not wanting to give it up - and "responsibility" is when the government takes it anyway.
In reality, he's giving with one hand and taking with the other. He's telling the poor he's only soaking the rich, when he's in fact soaking everyone. The amazing thing is that his supporters, rich and poor alike, buy it. No wonder they're the ones they've been waiting for.
Or the ones Obama has been waiting for. Wait until he pulls the health care wool over their eyes...
The point is that Obama's rhetoric about shared sacrifice is bogus on every level. He tells people they are the upright ones for supporting his policies, when what he's actually saying is that he's taking from the rich and giving it to them. "Shared sacrifice" really means taking other people's money; "greed" is not wanting to give it up - and "responsibility" is when the government takes it anyway.
In reality, he's giving with one hand and taking with the other. He's telling the poor he's only soaking the rich, when he's in fact soaking everyone. The amazing thing is that his supporters, rich and poor alike, buy it. No wonder they're the ones they've been waiting for.
Or the ones Obama has been waiting for. Wait until he pulls the health care wool over their eyes...
Two Parables For Our Wacky Time
How the stimulus plan will work - I've seen this before, but it bears repeating (I did tweak it a bit):
Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House. One is from New Jersey , another is from Tennessee , and the third is from Minnesota .
All three go with a White House official to examine the fence.
The Minnesota contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. "Well," he says, "I figure the job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me."
The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, "I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me."
The New Jersey contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the White House official and whispers, "$2,700."
The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?"
The Jersey contractor whispers back, "$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence."
"Done!" replies the government official.
And that, my friends, is how the new stimulus plan will work.
On the head! And here's one more, on, ahem, "tax cuts":
If you don’t understand the Democrats’ version of tax cuts (and you are not alone), maybe this will help explain it:
50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due.
The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee’s interpretation of fairness.
After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the ticket holders of the most expensive tickets. That would be unfair and unconscionable.
People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an “Earned Income Ticket Credit.” Persons “earn” it by demonstrating little ambition, few skills and poor work habits, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.
People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because that’s only fair.
People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don’t need a refund. After all, if they can afford a $50 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes.
People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend.
The people driving (or walking) by the stadium who couldn’t afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn’t pay anything in, because they need the most help (sometimes known as Affirmative Action!).
Now do you understand?
Sigh...yes, unfortunately...
Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House. One is from New Jersey , another is from Tennessee , and the third is from Minnesota .
All three go with a White House official to examine the fence.
The Minnesota contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. "Well," he says, "I figure the job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me."
The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, "I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me."
The New Jersey contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the White House official and whispers, "$2,700."
The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?"
The Jersey contractor whispers back, "$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence."
"Done!" replies the government official.
And that, my friends, is how the new stimulus plan will work.
On the head! And here's one more, on, ahem, "tax cuts":
If you don’t understand the Democrats’ version of tax cuts (and you are not alone), maybe this will help explain it:
50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due.
The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee’s interpretation of fairness.
After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the ticket holders of the most expensive tickets. That would be unfair and unconscionable.
People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an “Earned Income Ticket Credit.” Persons “earn” it by demonstrating little ambition, few skills and poor work habits, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.
People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because that’s only fair.
People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don’t need a refund. After all, if they can afford a $50 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes.
People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend.
The people driving (or walking) by the stadium who couldn’t afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn’t pay anything in, because they need the most help (sometimes known as Affirmative Action!).
Now do you understand?
Sigh...yes, unfortunately...
วันศุกร์, มีนาคม 06, 2552
Hillary, Iran, And The Obvious Stupidity Of It All
So Hillary Clinton invites Iran to interfere - I mean, "assist" with quelling the violence in Afghanistan. Since ramping up the killings is what Iran would prefer (and who doesn't wan't to see the Great Satan bogged down in a quagmire?), one cannot fathom why Hillary Clinton would make such an offer.
Well, clearly, it's at her master's bidding, and the sheer stupidity of it is obvious even within a short Daily News feed:
Hillary Clinton moved to break the taboo on engaging with Iran Thursday by proposing a conference on Afghanistan with a seat reserved for Tehran.
"It is expected that Iran would be invited as a neighbor of Afghanistan," Clinton said at a NATO foreign ministers meeting in Brussels. It marked the first effort to fulfill President Obama's campaign pledge to engage Iran, an Islamic state listed by the U.S. as a sponsor of terrorism.
There was no immediate response from Tehran, where supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was hosting his own conference to build support for the Hamas and Hezbollah terror groups to confront Israel.
Classic.
And what does Hillary hope to accomplish? "Breathtaking in its scope", as Obama's media lapdogs like to say:
"We hope that this meeting could provide an opportunity to reach a common set of principles, perhaps embodied in a chairman's statement, on a common way forward" in Afghanistan, Clinton said.
"A chairman's statement"! Oh, that'll scare the pants off the Taliban!
Liberal cowardice in full display. No guts to fight, or even stand on principle, they'll invite their worst enemy on board to create the illusion of cooperation, then shrug their shoulders when it all goes to hell, because they're not interested in results. "Hey", they'll say, "we acted in accordance with internation law and with the best intentions, so you can't blame us!".
Oh, Yes We Can! And what is the road to hell paved with? Oh, right.
Well, clearly, it's at her master's bidding, and the sheer stupidity of it is obvious even within a short Daily News feed:
Hillary Clinton moved to break the taboo on engaging with Iran Thursday by proposing a conference on Afghanistan with a seat reserved for Tehran.
"It is expected that Iran would be invited as a neighbor of Afghanistan," Clinton said at a NATO foreign ministers meeting in Brussels. It marked the first effort to fulfill President Obama's campaign pledge to engage Iran, an Islamic state listed by the U.S. as a sponsor of terrorism.
There was no immediate response from Tehran, where supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was hosting his own conference to build support for the Hamas and Hezbollah terror groups to confront Israel.
Classic.
And what does Hillary hope to accomplish? "Breathtaking in its scope", as Obama's media lapdogs like to say:
"We hope that this meeting could provide an opportunity to reach a common set of principles, perhaps embodied in a chairman's statement, on a common way forward" in Afghanistan, Clinton said.
"A chairman's statement"! Oh, that'll scare the pants off the Taliban!
Liberal cowardice in full display. No guts to fight, or even stand on principle, they'll invite their worst enemy on board to create the illusion of cooperation, then shrug their shoulders when it all goes to hell, because they're not interested in results. "Hey", they'll say, "we acted in accordance with internation law and with the best intentions, so you can't blame us!".
Oh, Yes We Can! And what is the road to hell paved with? Oh, right.
What Does Hillary Clinton Believe In?
Apparently, everything. Or anything that advances her political career at a particular moment.
As a first lady, all she cared about was health care reform. As a New York Senator, she nary uttered a word about it, instead morphing into a great champion of Israel and an overall moderate hawk. As a candidate, she was a whiskey-drinking populist, a women of the common folk. As Sec of State, she has already sold Israel down the river, and is now overseas urging Europeans to adopt energy tactics that would destroy her ex-constituents and the very voters she reached out to with her candidate persona.
Why? She's on her knees before the new boss, of course, and his instructions have been clear since the beginning. She repeats them, verbatim:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience on Friday "never waste a good crisis," as she highlighted the opportunity of rebuilding economies in a greener, less energy intensive model.
Clinton told young Europeans at the European Parliament global economic turmoil provided a fresh opening: "Never waste a good crisis ... Don't waste it when it can have a very positive impact on climate change and energy security."
Well, we can't say we haven't been warned. The Obama administation is pushing a radical leftist policy down our throats, and gloating about having the cover of a crisis in which to put it over on us. That's why Obama and Co. stoke the fear daily (damn the markets and the millions who are losing their shirts!), because they need the crissi to continue in order to effect their program of socialism in America.
And to show what a good multi-lateralist she is, Hillary throws in some gratuitous bashing of her home country to ingratiate herself with the locals:
But with many countries in the grip of a punishing recession, some question whether businesses can muster the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to cut carbon emissions.
"Certainly the United States has been negligent in living up to its responsibilities," said Clinton, on her first visit to Europe as secretary of state.
"This is a propitious time ... we can actually begin to demonstrate our willingness to confront this."
"Propitious time", aka "a crisis". Is it really the best time to burden struggling businessness with a brutal new energy tax, in the middle of an economic meltdown? Or is is a "propitious time" to push a key item on the liberal agenda, in the hope that any resulting disaster can be blamed on George Bush and Rush Limbaugh?
Hillary's only concern is kissing up to Obama and the liberal base now running the show, by repeating his/their platitudes ad nasuem, in the hopes it will continue to further her career. Meanwhile, we all suffer.
Hope and change? Hypocrisy and lies is as old as established government itself...
As a first lady, all she cared about was health care reform. As a New York Senator, she nary uttered a word about it, instead morphing into a great champion of Israel and an overall moderate hawk. As a candidate, she was a whiskey-drinking populist, a women of the common folk. As Sec of State, she has already sold Israel down the river, and is now overseas urging Europeans to adopt energy tactics that would destroy her ex-constituents and the very voters she reached out to with her candidate persona.
Why? She's on her knees before the new boss, of course, and his instructions have been clear since the beginning. She repeats them, verbatim:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience on Friday "never waste a good crisis," as she highlighted the opportunity of rebuilding economies in a greener, less energy intensive model.
Clinton told young Europeans at the European Parliament global economic turmoil provided a fresh opening: "Never waste a good crisis ... Don't waste it when it can have a very positive impact on climate change and energy security."
Well, we can't say we haven't been warned. The Obama administation is pushing a radical leftist policy down our throats, and gloating about having the cover of a crisis in which to put it over on us. That's why Obama and Co. stoke the fear daily (damn the markets and the millions who are losing their shirts!), because they need the crissi to continue in order to effect their program of socialism in America.
And to show what a good multi-lateralist she is, Hillary throws in some gratuitous bashing of her home country to ingratiate herself with the locals:
But with many countries in the grip of a punishing recession, some question whether businesses can muster the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to cut carbon emissions.
"Certainly the United States has been negligent in living up to its responsibilities," said Clinton, on her first visit to Europe as secretary of state.
"This is a propitious time ... we can actually begin to demonstrate our willingness to confront this."
"Propitious time", aka "a crisis". Is it really the best time to burden struggling businessness with a brutal new energy tax, in the middle of an economic meltdown? Or is is a "propitious time" to push a key item on the liberal agenda, in the hope that any resulting disaster can be blamed on George Bush and Rush Limbaugh?
Hillary's only concern is kissing up to Obama and the liberal base now running the show, by repeating his/their platitudes ad nasuem, in the hopes it will continue to further her career. Meanwhile, we all suffer.
Hope and change? Hypocrisy and lies is as old as established government itself...
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)