One would think that the political class would get the old axiom. The cover-up is worse than the crime. But not these folks in Washington. They will go down with the sinking ship.
And the sinking ship in question is that known now as Operation Fast And Furious.
I do not know if anyone else has commented, but why name the operation after a movie and subsequent sequels that sucked? Just sayin'.
But seriously, think of the whole idea for just a moment.
The way this was supposed to work is as a sting operation.
The feds were selling weapons to supposed "straw purchasers" that were going to in turn build a bigger case into suspected Mexican drug cartels that would be the ultimate buyer.
Only one problem.
There was no way of tracking the weapons throughout the sting. And the feds were stung themselves big time when United States border control officer Brian Terry was killed last December.
As it turned out, a gun that seized when Officer Terry was killed was eventually traced back to. . .the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. And it blew open the disaster that is Operation Fast And Furious.
Worse is what has happened as direct result of this sting gone bad.
Some of the weapons were used or found at 179 violent crime scenes in Mexico alone. And at this point, only 600 of 2,000 guns "sold" in the sting have been recovered.
But like all other things gone wrong, it is the cover-up that has to keep some people up all night.
The fact is that members of the justice department, including the attorney general, Eric Holder, have claimed to have little of any knowledge of the sting operation. Only problem for Mr. Holder is that he has known about it. He had been informed back in July, 2010. That would put his knowledge in the very planning stages of the sting. Yet, Mr. Holder on hearings held on May 3, 2011 said the following:
"I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks."
Sorry, that is not an affirmative, Mr. Holder.
And to continue to dig himself into a hole, Mr. Holder sent this letter to congress claiming that all of his testimony is truthful. OK, maybe in his mind, it is. But what will happen if he is contradicted in new testimony?
Well, sit back and get that microwave popcorn ready because it appears that Mr. Holder will be subpoenaed to testify before congress.
Friends, this is why the cover-up is worse than the crime. Because Mr. Holder will be contradicted. He will have to lay out why this hair-brained scheme ever saw the light of day. He will have to explain why this was acceptable with the better than 50-50 chance that said weapons would be used in crimes. Even, especially, murder.
The best case would be for the administration to lay out why this was done, and why it failed. And yes, Mr. Holder and others should at the very least resign.
For the administration of the Dear Leader, President Obama, can not want this cloud hanging over its head going into the election next year. An election that will be a tough one to win on the economy alone.
Again, I just have to note that the cover-up is always worse than the crime. Except this time, people may have been killed.
Sunday, October 09, 2011
Thursday, October 06, 2011
So Dems Are Bigger Movie Goers Than GOPers-And Are You Surprised
This story is here just in time for the weekend and it pretty much exposes something that most of us already know.
That Democrats are more than likely to actually go to first run movies than Republicans. And Dems like certain movies more than GOPers. And-surprise-they tend to be rather anti-establishment, anti-American in nature.
But there is something surprising, too me, about this.
It appears that GOPers think about what they will see. According to the article, 35% of Republicans and 45% of Tea Party leaners will think about who is in a particular movie before forking out the $10+ bucks at the average movie house. Only 20% of Democrats give it a thought.
Part of that dynamic is simple.
Because the Democrats tend to know that most of the Hollyweird people are in their corner, they are less likely to think about a star or who is in a movie before putting down the ducats. Republicans/Tea Party leaners are very aware that many Hollyweidos are downright hostile to them and their point of view. Why fork out the cash to unappreciative stooges? Especially if they can wait until it is available for home viewing.
Which is another interesting insight of this article. That GOPers will wait to rent or watch a movie in the comfort of their own home. And not have to break a bank to take the family to the movie house. Or have a date night doing something more worthwhile than watching leftist stooges tear down the United States and or it's institutions. According to the article, in the last six months, Dems have seen 5.7 movies at the movie house while GOPers have seen less than four in the same time period. The theory is that Dems want to be cool and in the know. Not that GOPers do not want to be. It is just that once in a blue moon, we would like to see a cool movie about the United States and or its institutions.
And not every movie thrown out of Hollyweird is Dem-friendly.
There are some uplifting, positive movies that have shown some success. Some are the Chronicle of Narnia series. Soul Surfer about young surfer Bethany Hamilton and losing an arm while being attacked by a shark while surfing in Hawai'i. Another is the movie Secretariat about the horse that won horse racing's Triple Crown in 1973.
FTR, I saw all the Narnia movies and Secretariat and will wait to see Soul Surfer when it becomes available on Netflix.
But usually, these movies end up being panned by those who have a great deal of influence on movie watchers.
Movie critics.
The critics love the edgy movies that seem to attract a more liberal, Democrat audience. And as such, they will make them to be the greatest movies evah. Even if they actually suck.
Now one problem is what about those that are in the middle? People who don't care about a movie having an agenda? Yeah, there are actually a lot of people in that category. That would be Mrs. RVFTLC.
She just plain likes movies. All kind of movies. Foreign films, comedies, dramas. But she, and I, rarely go to a full-price movie in the evening. Usually the first showing of the day is the cheapest. Kaching! And she is the loyalist Netflixer out there.
Now, my movie watching is pretty selective.
I like a lot of mindless violence. I also like uplifting movies. And a lot of comedy as well.
But the fact is the movies have become one more aspect of modern life that is politically charged.
Thus it appears that there are not a lot of movies that both sides like.
Ahh, maybe I am wrong on that.
In a related link, it appears that both sides like such classic movies as Amadeus, Forrest Gump, The King's Speech, The Godfather II and The Deer Hunter.
But hey, it can't all be unifying, can it?
Dems liked The Departed, Crash, Kramer vs. Kramer and Slumdog Millionaire more than GOPers.
For the GOPers, we tend to like Chariots Of Fire, The Sting, The Sound Of Music, and Braveheart more than the Dems.
My take on all of this is that this solidifies what most on the conservative side believe about Hollyweird and what they produce. But there is hope and we on the conservative side must continue to engage and get the kind of movies out there that appeal more to us. And that Hollyweird needs to make some movies that are unifying in who it appeals to. Not divisive and money losing to score some political points.
Until that happens, look for less conservatives actually going to the movie house and liberals propping the Hollyweird industry. And it can only be so much that one side can do to prop a dying industry.
That Democrats are more than likely to actually go to first run movies than Republicans. And Dems like certain movies more than GOPers. And-surprise-they tend to be rather anti-establishment, anti-American in nature.
But there is something surprising, too me, about this.
It appears that GOPers think about what they will see. According to the article, 35% of Republicans and 45% of Tea Party leaners will think about who is in a particular movie before forking out the $10+ bucks at the average movie house. Only 20% of Democrats give it a thought.
Part of that dynamic is simple.
Because the Democrats tend to know that most of the Hollyweird people are in their corner, they are less likely to think about a star or who is in a movie before putting down the ducats. Republicans/Tea Party leaners are very aware that many Hollyweidos are downright hostile to them and their point of view. Why fork out the cash to unappreciative stooges? Especially if they can wait until it is available for home viewing.
Which is another interesting insight of this article. That GOPers will wait to rent or watch a movie in the comfort of their own home. And not have to break a bank to take the family to the movie house. Or have a date night doing something more worthwhile than watching leftist stooges tear down the United States and or it's institutions. According to the article, in the last six months, Dems have seen 5.7 movies at the movie house while GOPers have seen less than four in the same time period. The theory is that Dems want to be cool and in the know. Not that GOPers do not want to be. It is just that once in a blue moon, we would like to see a cool movie about the United States and or its institutions.
And not every movie thrown out of Hollyweird is Dem-friendly.
There are some uplifting, positive movies that have shown some success. Some are the Chronicle of Narnia series. Soul Surfer about young surfer Bethany Hamilton and losing an arm while being attacked by a shark while surfing in Hawai'i. Another is the movie Secretariat about the horse that won horse racing's Triple Crown in 1973.
FTR, I saw all the Narnia movies and Secretariat and will wait to see Soul Surfer when it becomes available on Netflix.
But usually, these movies end up being panned by those who have a great deal of influence on movie watchers.
Movie critics.
The critics love the edgy movies that seem to attract a more liberal, Democrat audience. And as such, they will make them to be the greatest movies evah. Even if they actually suck.
Now one problem is what about those that are in the middle? People who don't care about a movie having an agenda? Yeah, there are actually a lot of people in that category. That would be Mrs. RVFTLC.
She just plain likes movies. All kind of movies. Foreign films, comedies, dramas. But she, and I, rarely go to a full-price movie in the evening. Usually the first showing of the day is the cheapest. Kaching! And she is the loyalist Netflixer out there.
Now, my movie watching is pretty selective.
I like a lot of mindless violence. I also like uplifting movies. And a lot of comedy as well.
But the fact is the movies have become one more aspect of modern life that is politically charged.
Thus it appears that there are not a lot of movies that both sides like.
Ahh, maybe I am wrong on that.
In a related link, it appears that both sides like such classic movies as Amadeus, Forrest Gump, The King's Speech, The Godfather II and The Deer Hunter.
But hey, it can't all be unifying, can it?
Dems liked The Departed, Crash, Kramer vs. Kramer and Slumdog Millionaire more than GOPers.
For the GOPers, we tend to like Chariots Of Fire, The Sting, The Sound Of Music, and Braveheart more than the Dems.
My take on all of this is that this solidifies what most on the conservative side believe about Hollyweird and what they produce. But there is hope and we on the conservative side must continue to engage and get the kind of movies out there that appeal more to us. And that Hollyweird needs to make some movies that are unifying in who it appeals to. Not divisive and money losing to score some political points.
Until that happens, look for less conservatives actually going to the movie house and liberals propping the Hollyweird industry. And it can only be so much that one side can do to prop a dying industry.
Wednesday, October 05, 2011
Sarah Palin NOT Running For President And Steve Jobs Dies
An absolutely amazing afternoon of news.
On the political front, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin formally announced that she will not seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012. And she said that she will not run a third-party because that would assure the reelection of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
On the technology front, one of the most innovative men to live in the 20tb and 21st centuries, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, lost his long fight with cancer as he died today at the age of 56.Back to Mrs. Palin.
I am not going to lie. I am disappointed that Mrs. Palin is not running this time around. I believe that she would have a positive impact in the GOP primaries and win and lose a big impact in how the party will run against the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And it kills my prediction of her candidacy!
But she has said many times that she does not have to have a "title" to have an impact. In fact, she said just that in her written announcement today. And she did indicate recently that a "title" would possibly "shackle" her.
And a reality is that while many of us had the fire in her belly, she did not have that fire in her belly.
That and the intense scrutiny of her family had to play a role in her decision.
In a sense, it is why I admire her even more. That she did not make a rash decision. That she put her family first. Regrettably, way to many pols put themselves and their careers over everything else.
And do not think that she will just sit back and let someone else do the heavy lifting.
Look for Mrs. Palin to back candidates as she did in 2010. And she will back in the primaries and general election campaign. She said in her announcement and subsequent interviews.
And yeah, i'll go out on the limb.
I believe that Mrs. Palin will endorse Herman Cain for the Republican nomination for president.
Mr. Cain is the candidate that is closest to Mrs. Palin's thinking. Firstly, he is the most outside of the GOP candidates. He is not a politician. He has not been elected to any office. He is a man of the private sector. He is a fighter. He is the American Dream writ large.
Now with the speculation of will she or won't she out of the way, look for a lot more from Mrs. Palin.
What can one say about Steve Jobs?
Again, a man who totally lived the American Dream and made our lives simpler and more interesting.
A man that dropped out of college and innovated the computer industry beyond many an imagination.
Mr. Jobs showed that with vision and people to believe in it, anything can be done.
We owe so much of our technological advancement to Mr. Jobs. And his Apple so-founders Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne also deserve a lot of credit.
But Mr. Jobs had the vision thing down. And that is why today we have such innovations as the Apple computer, the i-Phone, the i-Pad. Things that we seem not to be able to live without.
There are just not many people like Steve Jobs. And while he had an amazing life, no doubt it was cut short by the scourge of cancer.
And these events make today an amazing news day.
On the political front, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin formally announced that she will not seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012. And she said that she will not run a third-party because that would assure the reelection of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
On the technology front, one of the most innovative men to live in the 20tb and 21st centuries, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, lost his long fight with cancer as he died today at the age of 56.Back to Mrs. Palin.
I am not going to lie. I am disappointed that Mrs. Palin is not running this time around. I believe that she would have a positive impact in the GOP primaries and win and lose a big impact in how the party will run against the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And it kills my prediction of her candidacy!
But she has said many times that she does not have to have a "title" to have an impact. In fact, she said just that in her written announcement today. And she did indicate recently that a "title" would possibly "shackle" her.
And a reality is that while many of us had the fire in her belly, she did not have that fire in her belly.
That and the intense scrutiny of her family had to play a role in her decision.
In a sense, it is why I admire her even more. That she did not make a rash decision. That she put her family first. Regrettably, way to many pols put themselves and their careers over everything else.
And do not think that she will just sit back and let someone else do the heavy lifting.
Look for Mrs. Palin to back candidates as she did in 2010. And she will back in the primaries and general election campaign. She said in her announcement and subsequent interviews.
And yeah, i'll go out on the limb.
I believe that Mrs. Palin will endorse Herman Cain for the Republican nomination for president.
Mr. Cain is the candidate that is closest to Mrs. Palin's thinking. Firstly, he is the most outside of the GOP candidates. He is not a politician. He has not been elected to any office. He is a man of the private sector. He is a fighter. He is the American Dream writ large.
Now with the speculation of will she or won't she out of the way, look for a lot more from Mrs. Palin.
What can one say about Steve Jobs?
Again, a man who totally lived the American Dream and made our lives simpler and more interesting.
A man that dropped out of college and innovated the computer industry beyond many an imagination.
Mr. Jobs showed that with vision and people to believe in it, anything can be done.
We owe so much of our technological advancement to Mr. Jobs. And his Apple so-founders Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne also deserve a lot of credit.
But Mr. Jobs had the vision thing down. And that is why today we have such innovations as the Apple computer, the i-Phone, the i-Pad. Things that we seem not to be able to live without.
There are just not many people like Steve Jobs. And while he had an amazing life, no doubt it was cut short by the scourge of cancer.
And these events make today an amazing news day.
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Can Republican Voters Instead Of Insiders Choose Our Presidential Nominee?
I have a question for you?
Who are these supposed Republican bigwigs that keep promoting a "flavor of the week" as the hope of the party in the 2012 presidential Death March campaign?
I mean for one thing, they seem to not be able to stick with a candidate.
Once there is any sign that their flavor is in any trouble, they pick up and look for someone else.
As noted, the latest heart breaker is the New Jersey governor, Chris Christie.
He said, hopefully for the last time, he is not a candidate for the Republican presidential nod in 2012.
But Gov. Christie is soon to be yesterday's news. Much like another governor.
Texas governor Rick Perry was high on the insider radar. And there were some good reasons. As governor, he has been a solid conservative. Low tax, low regulation. Solid social conservative. But, he is in trouble for the issue of illegal immigration. It is not so much that he supported and signed into law the Texas Nightmare, er Dream Act. But he has not done a good job defending it. Instead he has made personal attacks on fellow conservative Republicans because they, we, do not understand why he supports a break for illegal aliens. No, it is not because we are heartless. No, it is not because there is no other way for these students to pay for their college education. It is that ham-handedness that has dropped him precipitously in polling. And now many of those that supported him as the Great GOP Hope are jumping that ship.
Before Gov. Perry was the former ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton.
Mr. Bolton is totally right on American foreign policy. But, this election will not be a foreign policy election. And Mr. Bolton on his own realized it and said thanks, but no thanks.
Even some of these people are trying once again to dip into the well that was the former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani. Must be gluttons for punishment. Because he did a bang-up job in 2008.
So, what is wrong with the declared candidates in the 2012 race?
Not one thing.
OK, save for three.
Congressman Ron Paul, former governors Gary Johnson of New Mexico and John Huntsman of Utah. And even those two I would take in a heartbeat over Congressman Paul and especially the Dear Leader, President Obama.
So what about the rest?
Is the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, that terrible a guy that the bigwigs (never actually identified) can not rally around? Say what one will about Mr. Romney but he has been around the block an election cycle before. Only one mistake that he is making this time around is trying to defend the Massachusetts version of Obamacare. And he is getting better on that. But Mr. Romney is a good strong center-right guy. He may not be a fire-breathing red-meat kind, but he will stand up well to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And back to Gov. Perry.
If he sounded more certain in debates and clearly articulate his stand on illegal immigration, he may get back in the race. What does worry me is because of a couple of shaky debates, I do worry about how he will fare against the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Then there is someone that may end up being this cycle's Sen. John "F--- You" McCain.
That is the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
As he keeps trudging along, he is getting stronger and audiences are receptive to the former House Speaker. And there is no doubt about the fact the dude is a fountain of ideas. And one other note. Mr. Gingrich is a proven winner. It was he that engineered the Republican election triumph of 1994 in which the House became Republican for the first time in over 50 years. And he staved off the Democrats in not one but two elections. The problem has always been discipline. But, I see that Mr. Gingrich is very much coming into his own. And, he may be a consensus choice for many.
And what about Herman Cain?
So he has not held political office. But he has been in the arena. And he took on then President Clinton in his attempt to socialize medicine in 1993-94. And he too has some ideas that are kind of radical. But he has ideas. And he is not a typical politician. After three years of the Dear Leader, President Obama show, maybe people are looking for real authenticity and not sloganeering.
I am sorry that Congressman Michele Bachmann seems to be fading, but she has not folded her tent and is staying in the race. She is a firebrand, the red-meat kind of candidate. And maybe that is why she is fading among some potential Republican voters.
And one last candidate that is on par with Mr. Gingrich is the former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum. Yes, everyone seems to harp on his 2006 defeat at the hands of now Democrat Sen. Bob Casey. Hey, how about winning some tough congressional and senate campaigns in a blue/purple state? And while he is noted as a strong social conservative, he has proven very able in the economic and national security area as well.
And here is the real deal.
Folks, if you are looking for a Ronald Reagan, forget it. Mr. Reagan was a one of a kind person. He was in the right place at the right time. And, he was not always what we know him as today. He suffered political losses. He was on the losing end of some of the debates of the time. And among fellow conservatives.
What I want to see is someone that can articulate conservatism the way Mr. Reagan did. And there all the candidates can take some lessons from the Great Man.
The people that are trying to anoint someone behind the scenes are, to be blunt, fools.
This is a great field of candidates. One of them is going to gain traction going into the primary and caucus season.
The important thing is to let the process play out and see what happens in the early states.
Stop trying to end the process before it even gets going.
I want to choose the nominee for the Republican party in 2012. I do not need some "insiders" or professional types to force their flavor of the month on me. Nor anyone else who will participate in the process.
Let us, the voter, choose our Republican candidate and stop trying all these people from out of the woodwork.
And remember that the real one to beat is the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Who are these supposed Republican bigwigs that keep promoting a "flavor of the week" as the hope of the party in the 2012 presidential Death March campaign?
I mean for one thing, they seem to not be able to stick with a candidate.
Once there is any sign that their flavor is in any trouble, they pick up and look for someone else.
As noted, the latest heart breaker is the New Jersey governor, Chris Christie.
He said, hopefully for the last time, he is not a candidate for the Republican presidential nod in 2012.
But Gov. Christie is soon to be yesterday's news. Much like another governor.
Texas governor Rick Perry was high on the insider radar. And there were some good reasons. As governor, he has been a solid conservative. Low tax, low regulation. Solid social conservative. But, he is in trouble for the issue of illegal immigration. It is not so much that he supported and signed into law the Texas Nightmare, er Dream Act. But he has not done a good job defending it. Instead he has made personal attacks on fellow conservative Republicans because they, we, do not understand why he supports a break for illegal aliens. No, it is not because we are heartless. No, it is not because there is no other way for these students to pay for their college education. It is that ham-handedness that has dropped him precipitously in polling. And now many of those that supported him as the Great GOP Hope are jumping that ship.
Before Gov. Perry was the former ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton.
Mr. Bolton is totally right on American foreign policy. But, this election will not be a foreign policy election. And Mr. Bolton on his own realized it and said thanks, but no thanks.
Even some of these people are trying once again to dip into the well that was the former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani. Must be gluttons for punishment. Because he did a bang-up job in 2008.
So, what is wrong with the declared candidates in the 2012 race?
Not one thing.
OK, save for three.
Congressman Ron Paul, former governors Gary Johnson of New Mexico and John Huntsman of Utah. And even those two I would take in a heartbeat over Congressman Paul and especially the Dear Leader, President Obama.
So what about the rest?
Is the former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, that terrible a guy that the bigwigs (never actually identified) can not rally around? Say what one will about Mr. Romney but he has been around the block an election cycle before. Only one mistake that he is making this time around is trying to defend the Massachusetts version of Obamacare. And he is getting better on that. But Mr. Romney is a good strong center-right guy. He may not be a fire-breathing red-meat kind, but he will stand up well to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And back to Gov. Perry.
If he sounded more certain in debates and clearly articulate his stand on illegal immigration, he may get back in the race. What does worry me is because of a couple of shaky debates, I do worry about how he will fare against the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Then there is someone that may end up being this cycle's Sen. John "F--- You" McCain.
That is the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.
As he keeps trudging along, he is getting stronger and audiences are receptive to the former House Speaker. And there is no doubt about the fact the dude is a fountain of ideas. And one other note. Mr. Gingrich is a proven winner. It was he that engineered the Republican election triumph of 1994 in which the House became Republican for the first time in over 50 years. And he staved off the Democrats in not one but two elections. The problem has always been discipline. But, I see that Mr. Gingrich is very much coming into his own. And, he may be a consensus choice for many.
And what about Herman Cain?
So he has not held political office. But he has been in the arena. And he took on then President Clinton in his attempt to socialize medicine in 1993-94. And he too has some ideas that are kind of radical. But he has ideas. And he is not a typical politician. After three years of the Dear Leader, President Obama show, maybe people are looking for real authenticity and not sloganeering.
I am sorry that Congressman Michele Bachmann seems to be fading, but she has not folded her tent and is staying in the race. She is a firebrand, the red-meat kind of candidate. And maybe that is why she is fading among some potential Republican voters.
And one last candidate that is on par with Mr. Gingrich is the former Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum. Yes, everyone seems to harp on his 2006 defeat at the hands of now Democrat Sen. Bob Casey. Hey, how about winning some tough congressional and senate campaigns in a blue/purple state? And while he is noted as a strong social conservative, he has proven very able in the economic and national security area as well.
And here is the real deal.
Folks, if you are looking for a Ronald Reagan, forget it. Mr. Reagan was a one of a kind person. He was in the right place at the right time. And, he was not always what we know him as today. He suffered political losses. He was on the losing end of some of the debates of the time. And among fellow conservatives.
What I want to see is someone that can articulate conservatism the way Mr. Reagan did. And there all the candidates can take some lessons from the Great Man.
The people that are trying to anoint someone behind the scenes are, to be blunt, fools.
This is a great field of candidates. One of them is going to gain traction going into the primary and caucus season.
The important thing is to let the process play out and see what happens in the early states.
Stop trying to end the process before it even gets going.
I want to choose the nominee for the Republican party in 2012. I do not need some "insiders" or professional types to force their flavor of the month on me. Nor anyone else who will participate in the process.
Let us, the voter, choose our Republican candidate and stop trying all these people from out of the woodwork.
And remember that the real one to beat is the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Am I The Only Conservative Glad Gov. Christie Is Sitting Out 2012?
Well, I believe that I am in good company as Mark Levin is not a big fan of the New Jersey governor, Chris Christie. I think he and I are two of the few conservatives glad Gov. Christie is sitting out the GOP 2012 presidential race.
Now I want to be clear.
I like a lot about Gov. Christie. He is a tough guy that is very focused and as conservative as one can be in New Jersey.
And there is the problem.
You see, New Jersey Republicans are not a real conservative group. After all, they were trying to push another Christie on the American people at one time. That Christie was the former governor, Christie Todd Whitman. Now, unlike Gov. Christie, she was much more to the left of the Republican center.
What is really bothersome about all the attempts to get Gov. Christie in the race in the first place. As he pointed out, that he wanted to finish what he started as governor.
The fact is that Gov. Christie would be not much more of an accomplished product than the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And why is there this attempt to get a front runner now? Who cares? Why are the money people so damn nervous nellies?
Those are for another post.
But while Gov. Christie's announcement disappoints many, I am troubled by his lukewarm attitude over what is driving the conservative movement today.
For instance, why is he not one of those leading the legal challenge to Obamacare?
Why would he nominate someone as Sohail Mohammed to a judgeship? And why would he be so defensive as to utter profanities when asked if it was an appropriate appointment? Why is Gov. Christie not more in front on opposing the policies of the Dear Leader, President Obama?
These are legitimate questions that we need to ask and expect to have answers. And that may be why Gov. Christie, wisely, chose not to run this time around.
I think that he has time to evolve into a solid conservative. On a lot of state policies, he has proven himself solid. But he does need to be more aggressive in social, national and international policy.
And he may have a chance in 2016 or even 2020.
Who knows?
But Gov. Christie said it best:
"Now is not my time."
That says a lot about him to me more than if he got in at this late date.
This conservative is glad Gov. Christie is waiting for the right time.
Now I want to be clear.
I like a lot about Gov. Christie. He is a tough guy that is very focused and as conservative as one can be in New Jersey.
And there is the problem.
You see, New Jersey Republicans are not a real conservative group. After all, they were trying to push another Christie on the American people at one time. That Christie was the former governor, Christie Todd Whitman. Now, unlike Gov. Christie, she was much more to the left of the Republican center.
What is really bothersome about all the attempts to get Gov. Christie in the race in the first place. As he pointed out, that he wanted to finish what he started as governor.
The fact is that Gov. Christie would be not much more of an accomplished product than the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And why is there this attempt to get a front runner now? Who cares? Why are the money people so damn nervous nellies?
Those are for another post.
But while Gov. Christie's announcement disappoints many, I am troubled by his lukewarm attitude over what is driving the conservative movement today.
For instance, why is he not one of those leading the legal challenge to Obamacare?
Why would he nominate someone as Sohail Mohammed to a judgeship? And why would he be so defensive as to utter profanities when asked if it was an appropriate appointment? Why is Gov. Christie not more in front on opposing the policies of the Dear Leader, President Obama?
These are legitimate questions that we need to ask and expect to have answers. And that may be why Gov. Christie, wisely, chose not to run this time around.
I think that he has time to evolve into a solid conservative. On a lot of state policies, he has proven himself solid. But he does need to be more aggressive in social, national and international policy.
And he may have a chance in 2016 or even 2020.
Who knows?
But Gov. Christie said it best:
"Now is not my time."
That says a lot about him to me more than if he got in at this late date.
This conservative is glad Gov. Christie is waiting for the right time.
Monday, October 03, 2011
"Occupy Wall Street" Is A Glimpse Of What The Late 1960s Must Have Been Like
Ahh, the leftist protest movement. Always looking for a cause. For the left, there is always a cause.
And when there is a cause, there will the left be, causing problems, and exposing themselves to the idiocy of their "agenda".
The latest is the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.
But my take is a little different.
I was born in 1964. A dreadful year in a way because it was the year that ol' Lyndon Johnson won a landslide election, the Democrats gained a stranglehold on congress and the "Great Society" welfare state took root in earnest.
But there was something pesky for the American left.
Because while then President Johnson was carrying the leftist domestic agenda, he increased the United States military involvement is Southeast Asia. Especially in Vietnam.
Again, the left kind of dug some old fellow names Ho Chi Minh. He was the founder of the communist North Vietnam state. These people did not like the fact that the United States was supporting South Vietnam. A corrupt yet pro-American government.
And the spoiled White children of the elite caught the fever. The fever of avoiding getting drafted and being sent to the jungles of Southeast Asia to fight for a corrupt regime in Saigon vs. the pure People's regime of the North.
Yeah, dudes like the Dear Leader, President Obama's "acquaintance", William Ayres, daughters of privilege like Bernadine Dohrn. Oh yeah. These two were like many of their era. Children of privilege that were guilty of their status. And scared to death of going to fight the Vietnam war.
So, I missed the halcyon days of the anti-war movement due to my being born at the right time.
I am thankful that I was not born earlier and might have been sucked up in that self-hatred.
Fast forward to today.
Now we have the Occupy Wall Street crowd and it is a collection of old lefties, labor union allies, washed up Hollyweird people and a collection of malcontents that do not feel they have freeloaded society enough.
So, what do these people want?
Well, according to their website, Occupy Wall Street, it looks like the garden variety list of lefty demands.
There are a total of 13 demands. Notice BTW, that they do not want to legislate any of this. It is demands, dammit!
Well, here are a few of my favorites:
Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
Demand four: Free college education.
Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
Whiskey! Tango! Foxtrot!
Now I get some of this. But outlawing all credit reporting agencies. I do not get that. Does that mean the people will not be able to access credit at all? Or will there not be credit in the New Utopia?
My particular favorite is open borders. At least these lefties are honest as to what they want. No borders, no nation.
Oh, sorry to disappoint the lefties, but we tried the Equal Rights amendment to the constitution. And it failed to pass under the constitutional framework.
And what do you know. They want a free college education for all. See, I am right about the freeloader aspect of this crowd.
What about the guaranteed "living wage"? What constitutes a "living wage"? It means different things to different people.
This is all absurd not because they can not happen. But it is absurd because once again the American left really believes that the people want to live in a socialist land. That is why they deny that the United States is anything different from any other nation in the world. If we are not different, then we are but as bad as any of the European nations that the American left wants us to become.
The irony is that the left has their dude in the White House. The Dear Leader, President Obama. Much as they had their dude in the 1960s in former President Johnson.
But it is not enough. The left wants to fundamentally discard the United States of America and turn it into some Leftytopia.
And what I am getting out of all this is an acid flashback without the acid. It is the 1960s redux. And it will end up much the same way. And that will not please the American left.
And when there is a cause, there will the left be, causing problems, and exposing themselves to the idiocy of their "agenda".
The latest is the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.
But my take is a little different.
I was born in 1964. A dreadful year in a way because it was the year that ol' Lyndon Johnson won a landslide election, the Democrats gained a stranglehold on congress and the "Great Society" welfare state took root in earnest.
But there was something pesky for the American left.
Because while then President Johnson was carrying the leftist domestic agenda, he increased the United States military involvement is Southeast Asia. Especially in Vietnam.
Again, the left kind of dug some old fellow names Ho Chi Minh. He was the founder of the communist North Vietnam state. These people did not like the fact that the United States was supporting South Vietnam. A corrupt yet pro-American government.
And the spoiled White children of the elite caught the fever. The fever of avoiding getting drafted and being sent to the jungles of Southeast Asia to fight for a corrupt regime in Saigon vs. the pure People's regime of the North.
Yeah, dudes like the Dear Leader, President Obama's "acquaintance", William Ayres, daughters of privilege like Bernadine Dohrn. Oh yeah. These two were like many of their era. Children of privilege that were guilty of their status. And scared to death of going to fight the Vietnam war.
So, I missed the halcyon days of the anti-war movement due to my being born at the right time.
I am thankful that I was not born earlier and might have been sucked up in that self-hatred.
Fast forward to today.
Now we have the Occupy Wall Street crowd and it is a collection of old lefties, labor union allies, washed up Hollyweird people and a collection of malcontents that do not feel they have freeloaded society enough.
So, what do these people want?
Well, according to their website, Occupy Wall Street, it looks like the garden variety list of lefty demands.
There are a total of 13 demands. Notice BTW, that they do not want to legislate any of this. It is demands, dammit!
Well, here are a few of my favorites:
Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
Demand four: Free college education.
Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
Whiskey! Tango! Foxtrot!
Now I get some of this. But outlawing all credit reporting agencies. I do not get that. Does that mean the people will not be able to access credit at all? Or will there not be credit in the New Utopia?
My particular favorite is open borders. At least these lefties are honest as to what they want. No borders, no nation.
Oh, sorry to disappoint the lefties, but we tried the Equal Rights amendment to the constitution. And it failed to pass under the constitutional framework.
And what do you know. They want a free college education for all. See, I am right about the freeloader aspect of this crowd.
What about the guaranteed "living wage"? What constitutes a "living wage"? It means different things to different people.
This is all absurd not because they can not happen. But it is absurd because once again the American left really believes that the people want to live in a socialist land. That is why they deny that the United States is anything different from any other nation in the world. If we are not different, then we are but as bad as any of the European nations that the American left wants us to become.
The irony is that the left has their dude in the White House. The Dear Leader, President Obama. Much as they had their dude in the 1960s in former President Johnson.
But it is not enough. The left wants to fundamentally discard the United States of America and turn it into some Leftytopia.
And what I am getting out of all this is an acid flashback without the acid. It is the 1960s redux. And it will end up much the same way. And that will not please the American left.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Dying For The Gospel
My previous post on the Episcopal church stands in stark contrast to the fate of a man in Iran who may well have already been put to death for the "crime" of being a Christian.
Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani is a convert from Islam to Christianity. And that is a huge no-no in Islamic nations and a nation as Iran in particular.
Because Pastor Nadarkhani is a pastor, he is seen as an enemy of Islam because he is trying to convert Islamics to becoming Christians.
Well, Pastor Nadarkhani is about to meet a martyr's fate for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
It is a crime in Iran to try to convert people from Islam to any other religion. But Christianity is reviled because it is evangelical in nature and practice.
Now, there is no evidence that Pastor Nadarkhani was forcibly making people convert from Islam to Christianity. But just mentioning that there is another way is too much for the ayatollah's. They have to make example's of people like Pastor Nadarkhani.
And it appears that they will.
No matter what happens, Pastor Nadarkhani will probably die for his faith. Whether at the hangman's noose in a prison. Or on the outside chance he would actually be freed, die at the hands of pro-government goons that will take him out.
In the linked article, Pastor Firouz Sadegh-Khandjani relayed a story of another man that was released by the Iranians and later killed by pro-government agents.
The sad fact is that there is little that can be done.
One group that is fighting for Pastor Nadarkhani's release is Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a British Christian group. They need our help and prayers.
Even the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, spoke up for Pastor Nadarkhani. And finally, the White House is getting ramped up on this.
All that can happen now is that the Iranians do indeed accede to multiple streams of international pressure and at least commute the death sentence or free Pastor Nadarkhani unconditionally.
This is something that should unite all people of faith and Christians in particular. It stands in total contrast the freedom of religion guaranteed in the Untied States constitution. That a regime would feel so threatened that they will kill a man of a very minority faith because he shared his religion. No, he did not take a gun, a sword or any other weapon but the weapon of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible and share with people.
For that, Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani may very well be the latest martyr of the Christian faith.
It is for people like this that churches should be fighting for.
Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani is a convert from Islam to Christianity. And that is a huge no-no in Islamic nations and a nation as Iran in particular.
Because Pastor Nadarkhani is a pastor, he is seen as an enemy of Islam because he is trying to convert Islamics to becoming Christians.
Well, Pastor Nadarkhani is about to meet a martyr's fate for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
It is a crime in Iran to try to convert people from Islam to any other religion. But Christianity is reviled because it is evangelical in nature and practice.
Now, there is no evidence that Pastor Nadarkhani was forcibly making people convert from Islam to Christianity. But just mentioning that there is another way is too much for the ayatollah's. They have to make example's of people like Pastor Nadarkhani.
And it appears that they will.
No matter what happens, Pastor Nadarkhani will probably die for his faith. Whether at the hangman's noose in a prison. Or on the outside chance he would actually be freed, die at the hands of pro-government goons that will take him out.
In the linked article, Pastor Firouz Sadegh-Khandjani relayed a story of another man that was released by the Iranians and later killed by pro-government agents.
The sad fact is that there is little that can be done.
One group that is fighting for Pastor Nadarkhani's release is Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a British Christian group. They need our help and prayers.
Even the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, spoke up for Pastor Nadarkhani. And finally, the White House is getting ramped up on this.
All that can happen now is that the Iranians do indeed accede to multiple streams of international pressure and at least commute the death sentence or free Pastor Nadarkhani unconditionally.
This is something that should unite all people of faith and Christians in particular. It stands in total contrast the freedom of religion guaranteed in the Untied States constitution. That a regime would feel so threatened that they will kill a man of a very minority faith because he shared his religion. No, he did not take a gun, a sword or any other weapon but the weapon of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible and share with people.
For that, Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani may very well be the latest martyr of the Christian faith.
It is for people like this that churches should be fighting for.
Preaching The Gospel Of The Democrat Party From The Pulpit
As an Episcopalian, many days barely, what my local bishop is pushing this Sunday's preachers to support the California Nightmare, er "Dream" Act is beyond offensive and not a Christian thing to do.
Bishop Jon Bruno has delivered his pronouncement from on high that the preachers need to preach on the so-called "Dream" Act that awaits California Gov. Jerry Brown's signature.
Why?
Since when shall preachers promote a clear agenda of the California Democrat party?
Well, since this is the whim of the bishop, I guess.
The background on the "Dream" act is simple.
It will allow the children of illegal aliens to access higher education by paying in-state tuitions instead of at the very least out-of-state tuitions.
And I am sorry, but this is a benefit at the expense of American students and is discriminatory at the least.
Why should a person that is in the United States, California in particular, get a benefit over a equally deserving potential student say from Colorado? Why should said student not pay the out-of-state tuition? After all, they are not legal, right?
But, many on the left want you to believe that this is a civil rights issue.
The dirty fact is that higher education is not a right. And it is something that not everyone can or should have.
I do not want to deny these good students the access to the higher education. If they are trying to do the right thing and become citizens, great. Until that happens, they are not and can not be treated as such. Especially at a time when all we hear from the higher educrats is how they are hurting for money.
You know, these students can do what many of us did.
They can work while going to school. Remember, they are doing two things. Trying to get a higher education and become American citizens. At the very least, these are people that can and should have a work visa and or a green card while they go through the process to become citizens. So they can have the ability to work while going through school.
Now, I ask again, why is the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles blatantly backing extremely partisan legislation?
I suppose it is a combination of "social justice" and being for the underdog.
But, this does come at a price and a cost to just as deserving Americans that have the misfortune of not being California residents. And, it is a magnet for other illegals to come to California, face no consequence for their action, have children and they can eventually benefit from this bad legislation.
The sad fact is if this legislation is signed, the real underdogs will be the American students that will compete for slots against illegal alien students.
Where will the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles be for them?
I believe that I hear crickets chirping on that.
And the other reality is that not all of us that are Christian and members of the Episcopal church support this legislation. On this, my bishop does not speak for me. Nor does my preacher if he or she chooses to preach on the justification of this legislation.
And what is this doing spreading the message of the Gospel? Is this bringing anyone to Jesus Christ?
I leave you with that question.
But I do not support the bishop and those in the Diocese of Los Angeles that support the so-called "Dream" act. For it will be a nightmare, not a dream, for most Americans and Californians.
Bishop Jon Bruno has delivered his pronouncement from on high that the preachers need to preach on the so-called "Dream" Act that awaits California Gov. Jerry Brown's signature.
Why?
Since when shall preachers promote a clear agenda of the California Democrat party?
Well, since this is the whim of the bishop, I guess.
The background on the "Dream" act is simple.
It will allow the children of illegal aliens to access higher education by paying in-state tuitions instead of at the very least out-of-state tuitions.
And I am sorry, but this is a benefit at the expense of American students and is discriminatory at the least.
Why should a person that is in the United States, California in particular, get a benefit over a equally deserving potential student say from Colorado? Why should said student not pay the out-of-state tuition? After all, they are not legal, right?
But, many on the left want you to believe that this is a civil rights issue.
The dirty fact is that higher education is not a right. And it is something that not everyone can or should have.
I do not want to deny these good students the access to the higher education. If they are trying to do the right thing and become citizens, great. Until that happens, they are not and can not be treated as such. Especially at a time when all we hear from the higher educrats is how they are hurting for money.
You know, these students can do what many of us did.
They can work while going to school. Remember, they are doing two things. Trying to get a higher education and become American citizens. At the very least, these are people that can and should have a work visa and or a green card while they go through the process to become citizens. So they can have the ability to work while going through school.
Now, I ask again, why is the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles blatantly backing extremely partisan legislation?
I suppose it is a combination of "social justice" and being for the underdog.
But, this does come at a price and a cost to just as deserving Americans that have the misfortune of not being California residents. And, it is a magnet for other illegals to come to California, face no consequence for their action, have children and they can eventually benefit from this bad legislation.
The sad fact is if this legislation is signed, the real underdogs will be the American students that will compete for slots against illegal alien students.
Where will the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles be for them?
I believe that I hear crickets chirping on that.
And the other reality is that not all of us that are Christian and members of the Episcopal church support this legislation. On this, my bishop does not speak for me. Nor does my preacher if he or she chooses to preach on the justification of this legislation.
And what is this doing spreading the message of the Gospel? Is this bringing anyone to Jesus Christ?
I leave you with that question.
But I do not support the bishop and those in the Diocese of Los Angeles that support the so-called "Dream" act. For it will be a nightmare, not a dream, for most Americans and Californians.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Once Again, Democrats Believe In Democracy Until It Gets In Their Way #3
Yeah, it is getting so bad to report the Democrat party and their want to curtail democracy when it gets in their way. It is now getting into numbering these posts.
I showed how the Dems kind of don't like democracy in California in these posts last month.
Now national Democrats are getting into the act of yearning to subvert the democracy that they so espouse when convenient to their issues.
Lets start with a so-called intellectual.
The former director of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, has an intellectual reason to cut back on democracy.You know, it just gets in the way of solving problems. You know all these people have to answer to voters what, every couple of years. Or every four years. Who knows?
Anyhow, according to Mr. Orszag, it is because we have differing points of view of the role of government, it gets in the way of "solving problems". He calls it polarization. I call it a democratic republic doing what it is supposed to do. See, it is up to the people, the voters, how they want to be governed. But, you know, that gets in the way of people like Mr. Orszag, AKA Mr. Problem Solver.
And how would Mr. Problem Solver take care of some of the most pressing problems?
Well, government by commission of course.
Take how he would like to solve one of the problems in regard to taxes. It is long, but read the whole graph:
What we need, then, are ways around our politicians. The first would be to expand automatic stabilizers—those tax and spending provisions that automatically expand when the economy weakens, thereby cushioning the blow, and automatically contract as the economy recovers, thereby helping to reduce the deficit. A progressive tax code is one such automatic stabilizer. The tax code takes less of your income as that income declines, so after-tax income tends to decline less in response to an economic shock than pre-tax income. Since spending is based on after-tax income, the impact on the economy is cushioned. Alan Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley has found that, as a result, the tax code has, over the past 50 years, offset about 8 percent of the initial shock to GDP from economic downturns. For the same reason, making the tax code more progressive would strengthen its role as an automatic stabilizer. Unemployment insurance is another automatic stabilizer; as the economy weakens, unemployment insurance expands, providing a boost to demand right when the economy needs it.
WOW! That first sentence alone is cause for alarm. "What we need, then, are ways around our politicians." Can you imagine if, oh another director of OMB were to make such a comment. Hmm, maybe if someone like Rob Portman, now a senator from Ohio, would have made such a comment? We know what would happen.
"How dare he! Fascist! What does he mean about ways around our politicians?!"
But the fact is Mr. Orszag feels our politicians are so bad, we need to just have some automatic arbitrary tax policy that congress should not even be involved in.
And eventually, Mr. Orszag points out that his solutions kind of take the accountability factor away from our elected officials.
Gee, ya think?
And that is the reason Mr. Orszag lays out a case to take more away from congress, set up "independent" committees and or commissions as the solution to "gridlock".
Well, at least he makes an intellectual reason towards a mini-dictatorship.
The governor of North Carolina, Beverly Perdue, on the other hand just wants to put off elections for a while. Because of elections, according to Gov. Perdue, we can't "get things done and solve our problems".
Where have we heard that before?
According to this report in the Raleigh News-Observer, hardly right-wing central, Gov. Perdue made her comments in a "tone was level and she asked others to support her on the idea."
OK, read the full statement for yourself:
"You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. The one good thing about Raleigh is that for so many years we worked across party lines. It's a little bit more contentious now but it's not impossible to try to do what's right in this state. You want people who don't worry about the next election."
OK, maybe reading it does not do it justice. So here is her saying her statement to the Cary, North Carolina Rotary Club.
Well, once the crap hit the fan, Gov. Perdue's minions tried various forms of damage control.
One tack was that she was joking. Yeah, sure she was. I guess Jay Leno, David Letterman or Jimmy Kimmel should be quaking in their boots for a comedienne is born in Gov. Perdue. The real kicker is that no one laughed at her comment.
Seeing that did not work, they tried the "Ahh, it is hyperbole" line. Here is Gov. Perdue's spokesminon, Chris Mackey:
"Come on. Gov. Perdue was obviously using hyperbole to highlight what we can all agree is a serious problem: Washington politicians who focus on their own election instead of what’s best for the people they serve."
It is such a problem, we should just suspend elections and not care the consequences of decisions of said elected officials.
Good Lord, what is happening to the Democrat party?
It is the stark realization that they may very well be thrown out on their ears in the 2012 election.
The fear among the Democrats is that 2010 was just an appetizer. That the conservatives and Republicans will go for the main course, the White House, and the side dish, the senate and get it next year.
So they lay out a case that it is these elections and elected officials that are the problem.
Again, if a conservative or Republican were to utter such things, said governor would be forced to resign. And or an official like a former director of OMB would never work again.
To the conspiracy crowd, this is how Team Obama will thwart next year's election. By using something to maybe try ol' Gov. Perdue's idea. Or circumvent congress as much as possible.
The real take from this is that we see the value of democracy to the left. That when the going gets tough, their inner statist rears its very ugly head.
The Founding Fathers got this.
The whole point of making the United States a republic, a democratic one, was to prevent such tyranny. The Founders did not think that elections would be suspended when it is inconvenient to one political faction over another. Nor did they envision government by committee or commission.
These examples are but a few in how the left reacts to having to debate and defend their positions. And it is not pretty.
More reason to be aware and hold those on our side accountable. And to put these statists on the sidelines where they belong.
Democracy is not cheap and expendable when inconvenient. Too bad some Democrats do not seem to get it.
I showed how the Dems kind of don't like democracy in California in these posts last month.
Now national Democrats are getting into the act of yearning to subvert the democracy that they so espouse when convenient to their issues.
Lets start with a so-called intellectual.
The former director of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, has an intellectual reason to cut back on democracy.You know, it just gets in the way of solving problems. You know all these people have to answer to voters what, every couple of years. Or every four years. Who knows?
Anyhow, according to Mr. Orszag, it is because we have differing points of view of the role of government, it gets in the way of "solving problems". He calls it polarization. I call it a democratic republic doing what it is supposed to do. See, it is up to the people, the voters, how they want to be governed. But, you know, that gets in the way of people like Mr. Orszag, AKA Mr. Problem Solver.
And how would Mr. Problem Solver take care of some of the most pressing problems?
Well, government by commission of course.
Take how he would like to solve one of the problems in regard to taxes. It is long, but read the whole graph:
What we need, then, are ways around our politicians. The first would be to expand automatic stabilizers—those tax and spending provisions that automatically expand when the economy weakens, thereby cushioning the blow, and automatically contract as the economy recovers, thereby helping to reduce the deficit. A progressive tax code is one such automatic stabilizer. The tax code takes less of your income as that income declines, so after-tax income tends to decline less in response to an economic shock than pre-tax income. Since spending is based on after-tax income, the impact on the economy is cushioned. Alan Auerbach of the University of California at Berkeley has found that, as a result, the tax code has, over the past 50 years, offset about 8 percent of the initial shock to GDP from economic downturns. For the same reason, making the tax code more progressive would strengthen its role as an automatic stabilizer. Unemployment insurance is another automatic stabilizer; as the economy weakens, unemployment insurance expands, providing a boost to demand right when the economy needs it.
WOW! That first sentence alone is cause for alarm. "What we need, then, are ways around our politicians." Can you imagine if, oh another director of OMB were to make such a comment. Hmm, maybe if someone like Rob Portman, now a senator from Ohio, would have made such a comment? We know what would happen.
"How dare he! Fascist! What does he mean about ways around our politicians?!"
But the fact is Mr. Orszag feels our politicians are so bad, we need to just have some automatic arbitrary tax policy that congress should not even be involved in.
And eventually, Mr. Orszag points out that his solutions kind of take the accountability factor away from our elected officials.
Gee, ya think?
And that is the reason Mr. Orszag lays out a case to take more away from congress, set up "independent" committees and or commissions as the solution to "gridlock".
Well, at least he makes an intellectual reason towards a mini-dictatorship.
The governor of North Carolina, Beverly Perdue, on the other hand just wants to put off elections for a while. Because of elections, according to Gov. Perdue, we can't "get things done and solve our problems".
Where have we heard that before?
According to this report in the Raleigh News-Observer, hardly right-wing central, Gov. Perdue made her comments in a "tone was level and she asked others to support her on the idea."
OK, read the full statement for yourself:
"You have to have more ability from Congress, I think, to work together and to get over the partisan bickering and focus on fixing things. I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that. The one good thing about Raleigh is that for so many years we worked across party lines. It's a little bit more contentious now but it's not impossible to try to do what's right in this state. You want people who don't worry about the next election."
OK, maybe reading it does not do it justice. So here is her saying her statement to the Cary, North Carolina Rotary Club.
Well, once the crap hit the fan, Gov. Perdue's minions tried various forms of damage control.
One tack was that she was joking. Yeah, sure she was. I guess Jay Leno, David Letterman or Jimmy Kimmel should be quaking in their boots for a comedienne is born in Gov. Perdue. The real kicker is that no one laughed at her comment.
Seeing that did not work, they tried the "Ahh, it is hyperbole" line. Here is Gov. Perdue's spokesminon, Chris Mackey:
"Come on. Gov. Perdue was obviously using hyperbole to highlight what we can all agree is a serious problem: Washington politicians who focus on their own election instead of what’s best for the people they serve."
It is such a problem, we should just suspend elections and not care the consequences of decisions of said elected officials.
Good Lord, what is happening to the Democrat party?
It is the stark realization that they may very well be thrown out on their ears in the 2012 election.
The fear among the Democrats is that 2010 was just an appetizer. That the conservatives and Republicans will go for the main course, the White House, and the side dish, the senate and get it next year.
So they lay out a case that it is these elections and elected officials that are the problem.
Again, if a conservative or Republican were to utter such things, said governor would be forced to resign. And or an official like a former director of OMB would never work again.
To the conspiracy crowd, this is how Team Obama will thwart next year's election. By using something to maybe try ol' Gov. Perdue's idea. Or circumvent congress as much as possible.
The real take from this is that we see the value of democracy to the left. That when the going gets tough, their inner statist rears its very ugly head.
The Founding Fathers got this.
The whole point of making the United States a republic, a democratic one, was to prevent such tyranny. The Founders did not think that elections would be suspended when it is inconvenient to one political faction over another. Nor did they envision government by committee or commission.
These examples are but a few in how the left reacts to having to debate and defend their positions. And it is not pretty.
More reason to be aware and hold those on our side accountable. And to put these statists on the sidelines where they belong.
Democracy is not cheap and expendable when inconvenient. Too bad some Democrats do not seem to get it.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Gettin Down Wit Tha Dear Leader An Tha Congressional Black Caucus
I can not believe this but I actually agree with Congressman Mad Max Waters (D-Calif.) and her reaction to the Dear Leader, President Obama's "speech" to the Congressional Black Caucus over this past weekend.
There is so much to unpack from this horrible performance from the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his strongest base of support. Where to begin?
How about the fact that the president felt a need to speak down to his audience?
Why did the Dear Leader, President Obama, trail off g's when talking to the Congressional Black Caucus? Why did he need to "speak Black" to this group of highly educated members of congress? Here the lowlight that I believe would sure as hell offend me if I were listenin to this crap:
"Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complainin'. Stop grumblin'. Stop cryin'. We are going to press on. We have work to do."
OK, so what Dear Leader, President Obama. Are you implying that Black Americans are lazy? That they are kickin back in their bedroom slippers? Well, to those lucky enough to be working, I do not think they have time to be in any kind of slippers. Nor do they have time to march for much of anything. Because if they are not working, they are bearing the brunt of the bad economy.
Lets look at the unemployment numbers in the Black community.
While overall national unemployment is at 9.1%, Black Americans have an unemployment rate of 16.7%. And when you break it down to men vs. women, men have it worse at a staggering 19.1% compared to Black women at 14.5%. And youth unemployment is really bad. It is at a staggering 31%.
So yeah, I do actually think Black Americans have a legitimate reason to wonder where the hell is the first Black president for them and trying to get the economy going so that they can get back to work.
Talking Black as the Dear Leader, President Obama, was doing does not help anyone. Period.
But here is what Congressman Mad Max said that I thoroughly agree with her on:
“I found that language a bit curious because the president spoke to the Hispanic Caucus, and certainly they’re pushing him on immigration… he certainly didn’t tell them to stop complaining. And he would never say that to the gay and lesbian community, who really pushed him on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
And like a broken clock is right at least twice a day, Congressman Mad Max is totally right on this one.
And here is the skinny on why and a light on the underbelly of identity politics in the left and among the Democrat party.
The left sees Hispanics as the future. That is why they want to be the ones that get the so-called comprehensive immigration "reform" through congress at any cost. Hispanics are growing at an astounding rate. Legal and illegal. And they, to the left and the Democrat establishment, translate to potential votes.
And how about Congressman Mad Max's comments on the Dear Leader, President Obama, regarding homosexuals?
They are a Democrat party cash cow. Many of the homosexual activist left are wealthy and want something for all the money they steer the Democrats' way. And yeah, they pushed hard on the armed services regarding "Don't ask, don't tell". And they got their way.
We have to remember that this president ran as something that he is not.
A race transformer.
He is resorting to ginning up the base because he has lost the minimal Republican support he had. And is losing independent voters in droves. Thus, he needs his base to stand by him and come out in the kind of numbers they did in the 2008 election.
But it appears that there is a reason the Dear Leader, President Obama, is campaigning like crazy for money. Because it ain't commin in like it did in '08.
As Mr. Koffler notes in the piece, even the Democrat establishment is coming to the realization.
The Thrill Is Gone!
Somehow, I just do not think that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is going to get the thrill back by talking down and insulting the very people that are his biggest supporters. He will need them more than ever.
Can you say that this president is in the midst of Amateur Hour?
There is so much to unpack from this horrible performance from the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his strongest base of support. Where to begin?
How about the fact that the president felt a need to speak down to his audience?
Why did the Dear Leader, President Obama, trail off g's when talking to the Congressional Black Caucus? Why did he need to "speak Black" to this group of highly educated members of congress? Here the lowlight that I believe would sure as hell offend me if I were listenin to this crap:
"Take off your bedroom slippers. Put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complainin'. Stop grumblin'. Stop cryin'. We are going to press on. We have work to do."
OK, so what Dear Leader, President Obama. Are you implying that Black Americans are lazy? That they are kickin back in their bedroom slippers? Well, to those lucky enough to be working, I do not think they have time to be in any kind of slippers. Nor do they have time to march for much of anything. Because if they are not working, they are bearing the brunt of the bad economy.
Lets look at the unemployment numbers in the Black community.
While overall national unemployment is at 9.1%, Black Americans have an unemployment rate of 16.7%. And when you break it down to men vs. women, men have it worse at a staggering 19.1% compared to Black women at 14.5%. And youth unemployment is really bad. It is at a staggering 31%.
So yeah, I do actually think Black Americans have a legitimate reason to wonder where the hell is the first Black president for them and trying to get the economy going so that they can get back to work.
Talking Black as the Dear Leader, President Obama, was doing does not help anyone. Period.
But here is what Congressman Mad Max said that I thoroughly agree with her on:
“I found that language a bit curious because the president spoke to the Hispanic Caucus, and certainly they’re pushing him on immigration… he certainly didn’t tell them to stop complaining. And he would never say that to the gay and lesbian community, who really pushed him on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
And like a broken clock is right at least twice a day, Congressman Mad Max is totally right on this one.
And here is the skinny on why and a light on the underbelly of identity politics in the left and among the Democrat party.
The left sees Hispanics as the future. That is why they want to be the ones that get the so-called comprehensive immigration "reform" through congress at any cost. Hispanics are growing at an astounding rate. Legal and illegal. And they, to the left and the Democrat establishment, translate to potential votes.
And how about Congressman Mad Max's comments on the Dear Leader, President Obama, regarding homosexuals?
They are a Democrat party cash cow. Many of the homosexual activist left are wealthy and want something for all the money they steer the Democrats' way. And yeah, they pushed hard on the armed services regarding "Don't ask, don't tell". And they got their way.
We have to remember that this president ran as something that he is not.
A race transformer.
He is resorting to ginning up the base because he has lost the minimal Republican support he had. And is losing independent voters in droves. Thus, he needs his base to stand by him and come out in the kind of numbers they did in the 2008 election.
But it appears that there is a reason the Dear Leader, President Obama, is campaigning like crazy for money. Because it ain't commin in like it did in '08.
As Mr. Koffler notes in the piece, even the Democrat establishment is coming to the realization.
The Thrill Is Gone!
Somehow, I just do not think that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is going to get the thrill back by talking down and insulting the very people that are his biggest supporters. He will need them more than ever.
Can you say that this president is in the midst of Amateur Hour?
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Time For Some Psychobabble On The Dear Leader
OK, usually I do not like to delve into such things. I mean, after all, I am not a professional in psychology, psychiatry, anything in the world of mental health.
But I have just thought about the Dear Leader, President Obama and how he is kind of sort of willing to lose and election to pursue an ideological agenda.
But before we go on, let me observe something about the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Does it not annoy the hell out of you when you see photos like this of the Dear Leader, President Obama?
Annoying, is it not? I mean, what is up with the head-cock action and the I-am-better than thou look? Does it not kind of remind you of another guy, some Italian fellow from the last century. Hmm, who could I be thinking of?
YEAH! That Benito Mussolini fellow. The former il duce of Italy. The man that began the original Axis of Evil in the 1920s.
Now before any one goes off and thinks that I am equating the Dear Leader, President Obama, with the brutal Italian dictator Mussolini, I am not. Per se.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, and Mussolini have a certain style.
That is the similarity.
Take a recent comment the Dear Leader, President Obama, said recently about dealing with congress on the issue of so-called comprehensive immigration "reform":
"As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own. There are times where -- until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again -- I'd like to work my way around Congress."
Yeah, when the opposition is in control, the real feelings come out. Imagine if former President Bush 43 made a similar comment? We all know that the Obamawhore media would go bat-ape crazy.
How about the latest from the Dear Leader, President Obama. The so-called "jobs bill" Our Dear Leader, President Obama, wants a bill passed that, until last week, did not even exist. Even better is when he stepped out into the White House Rose Garden last week, he waved around a "bill" with a huge paperclip to hold the 155 pages together. At least it was not 2,000 as the so-called health care "reform" bill.
The attitude that the Dear Leader, President Obama, shows is not that of the elected leader of the world's great superpower. But that of some strongman like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. One that looks at the legislative branch of government as all but unnecessary. That they should just rubber-stamp what he wishes.
And when the Democrats ran congress, well they acted like that.
A rubber-stamp.
Where was the discourse?
But back to the so-called "jobs bill".
Funny how it turns out that we need to tax the filthy, eeeeevvvvviiilllll rich to pay for it.
And to cut the federal budget deficit? Again, we need to tax the filthy, stinking eeeeevvvvvviiilllll rich.
The fact is, there is nothing about the Dear Leader, President Obama, that a good ol' tax hike won't fix.
That is the thrust of this president.
He wants to show his base that yeah, I'm the dude that stuck it to the rich. Yeah, I told you I would raise their taxes.
And to hear the Dear Leader, President Obama, tell it, all about "fairness". That the eeeeevvvvviiilllll, filthy, stinking rich need to pay their "fair" share. After all, they have all this money. What do they need it for? What?! To start business? Expand business? Hire people? Nah, we need to take their money, expand the government and we will hire the people.
And this, my friends, is the mindset of a socialist.
Yeah, a lot of fellow conservatives think that it is harsh and a bit over the top to refer to the president of the United States as a socialist. But what other conclusion can one come to? Why is he still pushing some kind of tax hike, any kind of tax hike, while the United States economy is on the verge of a double-dip recession?
Because it is not about the economy.
It is about the fundamental transformation of America.
That is the psychobabble.
That our president is at heart a socialist. One who believes that the so-called eeeeevvvvviiilllll, filthy, stinking rich are bad. That the only good comes from a large government.
It is why he must be defeated in the next election.
And with his stellar poll numbers, that may be easier than we would have thought even a month ago.
But I have just thought about the Dear Leader, President Obama and how he is kind of sort of willing to lose and election to pursue an ideological agenda.
But before we go on, let me observe something about the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Does it not annoy the hell out of you when you see photos like this of the Dear Leader, President Obama?
Annoying, is it not? I mean, what is up with the head-cock action and the I-am-better than thou look? Does it not kind of remind you of another guy, some Italian fellow from the last century. Hmm, who could I be thinking of?
YEAH! That Benito Mussolini fellow. The former il duce of Italy. The man that began the original Axis of Evil in the 1920s.
Now before any one goes off and thinks that I am equating the Dear Leader, President Obama, with the brutal Italian dictator Mussolini, I am not. Per se.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, and Mussolini have a certain style.
That is the similarity.
Take a recent comment the Dear Leader, President Obama, said recently about dealing with congress on the issue of so-called comprehensive immigration "reform":
"As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own. There are times where -- until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again -- I'd like to work my way around Congress."
Yeah, when the opposition is in control, the real feelings come out. Imagine if former President Bush 43 made a similar comment? We all know that the Obamawhore media would go bat-ape crazy.
How about the latest from the Dear Leader, President Obama. The so-called "jobs bill" Our Dear Leader, President Obama, wants a bill passed that, until last week, did not even exist. Even better is when he stepped out into the White House Rose Garden last week, he waved around a "bill" with a huge paperclip to hold the 155 pages together. At least it was not 2,000 as the so-called health care "reform" bill.
The attitude that the Dear Leader, President Obama, shows is not that of the elected leader of the world's great superpower. But that of some strongman like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. One that looks at the legislative branch of government as all but unnecessary. That they should just rubber-stamp what he wishes.
And when the Democrats ran congress, well they acted like that.
A rubber-stamp.
Where was the discourse?
But back to the so-called "jobs bill".
Funny how it turns out that we need to tax the filthy, eeeeevvvvviiilllll rich to pay for it.
And to cut the federal budget deficit? Again, we need to tax the filthy, stinking eeeeevvvvvviiilllll rich.
The fact is, there is nothing about the Dear Leader, President Obama, that a good ol' tax hike won't fix.
That is the thrust of this president.
He wants to show his base that yeah, I'm the dude that stuck it to the rich. Yeah, I told you I would raise their taxes.
And to hear the Dear Leader, President Obama, tell it, all about "fairness". That the eeeeevvvvviiilllll, filthy, stinking rich need to pay their "fair" share. After all, they have all this money. What do they need it for? What?! To start business? Expand business? Hire people? Nah, we need to take their money, expand the government and we will hire the people.
And this, my friends, is the mindset of a socialist.
Yeah, a lot of fellow conservatives think that it is harsh and a bit over the top to refer to the president of the United States as a socialist. But what other conclusion can one come to? Why is he still pushing some kind of tax hike, any kind of tax hike, while the United States economy is on the verge of a double-dip recession?
Because it is not about the economy.
It is about the fundamental transformation of America.
That is the psychobabble.
That our president is at heart a socialist. One who believes that the so-called eeeeevvvvviiilllll, filthy, stinking rich are bad. That the only good comes from a large government.
It is why he must be defeated in the next election.
And with his stellar poll numbers, that may be easier than we would have thought even a month ago.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Crazy Uncle Ron Paul Wins Cali GOP Straw Poll
It is not a big surprise, really, that Congressman Crazy Uncle Ron Paul won the California Republican party straw poll at its twice a year confab in Los Angeles yesterday.
Part of the reason is that Crazy Uncle Ron at least showed up and spoke to the statewide convention crowd.
And the other reason is that there is still a strong libertarian stream of the California Republican party that has some strong influence at events like this.
But the real story is the performance of the second place finisher, Texas governor Rick Perry. Gov. Perry came in at 29% to Crazy Uncle Ron's 45%. And between those two, the rest were left in the dust in single digits.
One of those, the only other major candidate to address the convention, Congressman Michele Bachmann finished a distant fourth pulling in 8%.
The real problem is that no one else besides Crazy Uncle Ron and Congressman Bachmann bothered to show up. The largest state in the nation and no serious Republican presidential candidate bothered to show up at the semi-annual convention.
Would it really have hurt any these candidates to take one day out of their schedule to fire up the troops? To breathe some life in this moribund statewide Republican party?
Of course not. But trust me, these candidates will be here soon asking for money for their campaigns. And they will do nothing to get the California Republican party fired up for the 2012 election.
As I have noted, yes the state Republican party took a beating in the last election cycle. It is not an excuse, but a reality. While the Republicans were scoring win after win all over the rest of the United States, we got our clocks cleaned by Democrat retreads. The three words why this happened? Gov. Benedict Arnold.
But, he is gone and the party has to stop naval-gazing. It needs the leadership on down to say that we are back in business and will fight for every vote statewide.
But that means presidential candidates can not keep ignoring the once Golden State except for campaign cash.
These guys and gals have to come here now. And yes, often. Because I really believe that this is a year the GOP can actually win in California. The stars are lining up in a way we have not seen in many a moon. Democrat office holders from the Dear Leader, President Obama, down to Sen. Dianne Feinstein are tanking. "Confidence" in government is at historic lows. People are looking for a change.
The next California Republican party confab has to be more than what we just saw. We have to see Gov. Perry, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, and even the also-rans here to get this state's party back from the brink. What more than a presidential election year? One that shows the Democrat incumbent on the ropes?
Crazy Uncle Ron Paul won the California Republican party straw poll in large part because he showed up. When will the other candidates show up?
Part of the reason is that Crazy Uncle Ron at least showed up and spoke to the statewide convention crowd.
And the other reason is that there is still a strong libertarian stream of the California Republican party that has some strong influence at events like this.
But the real story is the performance of the second place finisher, Texas governor Rick Perry. Gov. Perry came in at 29% to Crazy Uncle Ron's 45%. And between those two, the rest were left in the dust in single digits.
One of those, the only other major candidate to address the convention, Congressman Michele Bachmann finished a distant fourth pulling in 8%.
The real problem is that no one else besides Crazy Uncle Ron and Congressman Bachmann bothered to show up. The largest state in the nation and no serious Republican presidential candidate bothered to show up at the semi-annual convention.
Would it really have hurt any these candidates to take one day out of their schedule to fire up the troops? To breathe some life in this moribund statewide Republican party?
Of course not. But trust me, these candidates will be here soon asking for money for their campaigns. And they will do nothing to get the California Republican party fired up for the 2012 election.
As I have noted, yes the state Republican party took a beating in the last election cycle. It is not an excuse, but a reality. While the Republicans were scoring win after win all over the rest of the United States, we got our clocks cleaned by Democrat retreads. The three words why this happened? Gov. Benedict Arnold.
But, he is gone and the party has to stop naval-gazing. It needs the leadership on down to say that we are back in business and will fight for every vote statewide.
But that means presidential candidates can not keep ignoring the once Golden State except for campaign cash.
These guys and gals have to come here now. And yes, often. Because I really believe that this is a year the GOP can actually win in California. The stars are lining up in a way we have not seen in many a moon. Democrat office holders from the Dear Leader, President Obama, down to Sen. Dianne Feinstein are tanking. "Confidence" in government is at historic lows. People are looking for a change.
The next California Republican party confab has to be more than what we just saw. We have to see Gov. Perry, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, and even the also-rans here to get this state's party back from the brink. What more than a presidential election year? One that shows the Democrat incumbent on the ropes?
Crazy Uncle Ron Paul won the California Republican party straw poll in large part because he showed up. When will the other candidates show up?
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Is Cali Sen. Dianne Feinstein In Trouble?
Well, if this latest poll is to be believed, then yes she is.
For those of you not in the once Golden State, Sen Dianne Feinstein is a typical center-left pol who came to fame as the mayor of San Francisco. She became mayor after then mayor George Moscone was assassinated along with Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978. She parlayed that time to eventually become senator from California. And she is much more polished than the troll Sen. Ma'am Boxer.
But now as things get bleaker looking in the state, people are souring on her.
Now I link to the San Francisco Chronicle, Sen. Feinstein's home town fish wrap because the spin of the story is beyond laughable.
You have to get to the end of the story to see how, well stupid, this is. I will save you the trouble:
GOP strategy
Republicans might not be keen to mount a challenge to Feinstein that would draw more Democratic Party money into California, possibly hurting down-ticket Republican congressional campaigns that may be struggling because of newly redrawn districts.
DiCamillo speculated that a moderate Republican candidate might do better against Feinstein following the failed bids of the more conservative Fiorina against Boxer and Meg Whitman against Gov. Jerry Brown last year. That was compounded by what DiCamillo said was disappointment in former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's governorship that left voters disillusioned with GOP newcomers.
OK, see, Republicans don't want more Democrat money in California because it would hurt down-ticket races.
Whiskey! Tango! Foxtrot!
The Republicans want the Democrats to have to spend money in California. If the Democrats have to spend money to keep California in the Dem column, this will be a historic landslide election. And that helps down-ticket races.
What that "analysis" is bull crap and spin, pure and simple.
Then the director of The Field Poll, Mark DiCamillo, suggests that a "moderate" can run competitively against Sen. Feinstein.
But the kicker is this line, 'following the failed bids of the more conservative Fiorina against Boxer and Meg Whitman against Gov. Jerry Brown last year.'
UGH! UGH! UGH!
Carly Fiorna was not a right-wing candidate. At best she was to the right of former Gov. Benedict Arnold. But to equate her with say Ronald Reagan is laughable. And Meg Whitman? You mean Globaloney Warming acolyte Meg Whitman?
Yeah, sure Mark. Sure they were right-wingers.
The only semi-correct point is the carnage that former Gov. Benedict Arnold left behind. You know, how "moderates" always do to the party they claim to be a part of and love.
But even here in Blue California, people are beginning to have had enough.
The voters are beginning to see that having the Democrats run the whole show is a total nightmare. That the state legislature has no clue about what they should be doing. That they are interested in getting their pet projects and or agendas off the ground. But to hell with actually making California inviting to business. To hell with taking off the regulatory nightmare. To hell with balancing the budget without smoke and mirrors.
Now, that does not mean that the Cali GOP is doing everything right. It is true that there is not a serious announced candidate against Sen. Feinstein.
But that maybe changing.
One who is serious looking at a run is former talk-show host and son of the former President Reagan, Micheal Reagan. And before anyone suggests it, I will beat you to it. California has changed a lot since the old man ran for governor in 1966. But one thing has not. And that is things really suck here. And yeah, maybe it will take a Reagan to once again save the day. Albeit it would be as one of a hundred senators. But the point is that with Sen. Feinstein's numbers this bad, it may be time for someone to get serious about a challenge to her.
In the same link, the writer notes another potential challenger.
Congressman David Dreier.
Now, who has made that suggestion? Hmm, I am not sure.
Sometimes, timing more than conventional wisdom is the key to potential victories, especially in politics.
And the timing maybe more right than imagined a week ago.
So, yes, Sen. Feinstein is in trouble. And it is time for the Cali GOP to get serious and mount a real challenge to her. If Blue California is to become even Purple California, we have to start somewhere. And the senate is as good a place as any.
For those of you not in the once Golden State, Sen Dianne Feinstein is a typical center-left pol who came to fame as the mayor of San Francisco. She became mayor after then mayor George Moscone was assassinated along with Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978. She parlayed that time to eventually become senator from California. And she is much more polished than the troll Sen. Ma'am Boxer.
But now as things get bleaker looking in the state, people are souring on her.
Now I link to the San Francisco Chronicle, Sen. Feinstein's home town fish wrap because the spin of the story is beyond laughable.
You have to get to the end of the story to see how, well stupid, this is. I will save you the trouble:
GOP strategy
Republicans might not be keen to mount a challenge to Feinstein that would draw more Democratic Party money into California, possibly hurting down-ticket Republican congressional campaigns that may be struggling because of newly redrawn districts.
DiCamillo speculated that a moderate Republican candidate might do better against Feinstein following the failed bids of the more conservative Fiorina against Boxer and Meg Whitman against Gov. Jerry Brown last year. That was compounded by what DiCamillo said was disappointment in former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's governorship that left voters disillusioned with GOP newcomers.
OK, see, Republicans don't want more Democrat money in California because it would hurt down-ticket races.
Whiskey! Tango! Foxtrot!
The Republicans want the Democrats to have to spend money in California. If the Democrats have to spend money to keep California in the Dem column, this will be a historic landslide election. And that helps down-ticket races.
What that "analysis" is bull crap and spin, pure and simple.
Then the director of The Field Poll, Mark DiCamillo, suggests that a "moderate" can run competitively against Sen. Feinstein.
But the kicker is this line, 'following the failed bids of the more conservative Fiorina against Boxer and Meg Whitman against Gov. Jerry Brown last year.'
UGH! UGH! UGH!
Carly Fiorna was not a right-wing candidate. At best she was to the right of former Gov. Benedict Arnold. But to equate her with say Ronald Reagan is laughable. And Meg Whitman? You mean Globaloney Warming acolyte Meg Whitman?
Yeah, sure Mark. Sure they were right-wingers.
The only semi-correct point is the carnage that former Gov. Benedict Arnold left behind. You know, how "moderates" always do to the party they claim to be a part of and love.
But even here in Blue California, people are beginning to have had enough.
The voters are beginning to see that having the Democrats run the whole show is a total nightmare. That the state legislature has no clue about what they should be doing. That they are interested in getting their pet projects and or agendas off the ground. But to hell with actually making California inviting to business. To hell with taking off the regulatory nightmare. To hell with balancing the budget without smoke and mirrors.
Now, that does not mean that the Cali GOP is doing everything right. It is true that there is not a serious announced candidate against Sen. Feinstein.
But that maybe changing.
One who is serious looking at a run is former talk-show host and son of the former President Reagan, Micheal Reagan. And before anyone suggests it, I will beat you to it. California has changed a lot since the old man ran for governor in 1966. But one thing has not. And that is things really suck here. And yeah, maybe it will take a Reagan to once again save the day. Albeit it would be as one of a hundred senators. But the point is that with Sen. Feinstein's numbers this bad, it may be time for someone to get serious about a challenge to her.
In the same link, the writer notes another potential challenger.
Congressman David Dreier.
Now, who has made that suggestion? Hmm, I am not sure.
Sometimes, timing more than conventional wisdom is the key to potential victories, especially in politics.
And the timing maybe more right than imagined a week ago.
So, yes, Sen. Feinstein is in trouble. And it is time for the Cali GOP to get serious and mount a real challenge to her. If Blue California is to become even Purple California, we have to start somewhere. And the senate is as good a place as any.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Will The Dear Leader Be Forced Out Of Reelection Bid?
It is an intriguing question and the short answer is no way, no how.
No way, no how that the Dear Leader, President Obama, will be asked to step aside and another Democrat (one assumes Hilary Clinton) run in his place.
The latest gossip on this is courtesy of The American Spectator's John Fund.
The reason it is not going to happen is, dare I say it, obvious because why would this happen to the first Black president in American history? Why would he be pushed aside? Other presidents have been in trying circumstances. In fact, this is always promoted when things are bad.
Does anyone not think when it looked bleak and ominous for one Ronald Reagan in 1983 that this was not thought about?
Now, the gossip website Gawker is reporting that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is suffering from depression. Well, who would not be given his current political situation?
Again, sorry to play the race card, but who is going to be the one or ones to tell the Dear Leader, President Obama, to step aside and anoint Mrs. Clinton your successor?
No one publicly or privately.
That is a dream of the Democrat establishment.
Many an establishment Dem is looking ahead and realizing that 2012 is probably going to be a bloodbath. But somehow, they can save the presidency if only St. Hilary is handed the reins of the Democrat party?
It is a lousy idea that will totally divide the party and cooler heads realize it.
The best that can be hoped for is that it will not be a total bloodbath. That the GOP nominate, hell Crazy Uncle Ron Paul and it saves the Dear Leader, President Obama's bacon.
This is all on the Dear Leader, President Obama. He will have to win or lose his reelection bid.
And no amount of gossip or wishful thinking is going to change that.
But I do agree with Allahpundit.
That his question about preventing a Democrat schism if this were to occur.
That is why it will not happen.
So wishful Dems, get through to November 2012, see what happens and then have the internal bloodbath begin.
Because no one but the voters will force out the Dear Leader, President Obama.
No way, no how that the Dear Leader, President Obama, will be asked to step aside and another Democrat (one assumes Hilary Clinton) run in his place.
The latest gossip on this is courtesy of The American Spectator's John Fund.
The reason it is not going to happen is, dare I say it, obvious because why would this happen to the first Black president in American history? Why would he be pushed aside? Other presidents have been in trying circumstances. In fact, this is always promoted when things are bad.
Does anyone not think when it looked bleak and ominous for one Ronald Reagan in 1983 that this was not thought about?
Now, the gossip website Gawker is reporting that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is suffering from depression. Well, who would not be given his current political situation?
Again, sorry to play the race card, but who is going to be the one or ones to tell the Dear Leader, President Obama, to step aside and anoint Mrs. Clinton your successor?
No one publicly or privately.
That is a dream of the Democrat establishment.
Many an establishment Dem is looking ahead and realizing that 2012 is probably going to be a bloodbath. But somehow, they can save the presidency if only St. Hilary is handed the reins of the Democrat party?
It is a lousy idea that will totally divide the party and cooler heads realize it.
The best that can be hoped for is that it will not be a total bloodbath. That the GOP nominate, hell Crazy Uncle Ron Paul and it saves the Dear Leader, President Obama's bacon.
This is all on the Dear Leader, President Obama. He will have to win or lose his reelection bid.
And no amount of gossip or wishful thinking is going to change that.
But I do agree with Allahpundit.
That his question about preventing a Democrat schism if this were to occur.
That is why it will not happen.
So wishful Dems, get through to November 2012, see what happens and then have the internal bloodbath begin.
Because no one but the voters will force out the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Finally! The Dear Leader Is Sucking Even In California
Well, it appears that the Hopey Changy thingy that drove 61% of California voters to the arms of the Dear Leader, President Obama, is losing it's luster here in the once Golden State.
And that is according to the latest Field Poll that shows the Dear Leader, President Obama, only getting a 46% positive rating. And only 49% would actually vote to reelect him at this time.
In seemingly perpetual Blue California, these have got to be alarming numbers.
And particularly after last night's Republican blowout in the New York state ninth congressional special election, this has got to worry Team Obama and California Democrats in particular.
But when you look at this graphic, it can not be a good sign for the Democrats.
Sure, their groups such as Blacks, Hispanics are still in the Dear Leader, President Obama's corner. But look at the loss of support. Among Black Californians the Dear Leader, President Obama, has lost 12% and only has 78% support. Hispanics, still continue to support the Dear Leader, President Obama and he has negligible loss of support with only three percent. Among Asians the Dear Leader, President Obama, has suffered his worst drain of support. A fully 16% loss of support. Only 48% of Asians are in the Dear Leader, President Obama's corner.
And in the political groupings, the Dear Leader, President Obama, has lost 10% of fellow Democrat support and only 69% of Democrats support him today. The Republicans are basically unchanged with 78% opposing the Dear Leader, President Obama. And the independent voters are essentially even, with the Dear Leader, President Obama, losing 13% of support.
And only 49% would even want to reelect the dude, in California, shows that the Republicans have a once-in-blue-moon chance to pull off an upset in this state.
If conventional wisdom holds out, the only time candidates of either party will pay attention to California will be to get cash infusions.
The Democrats will take it for granted and the Republicans will not even try.
That thinking has to change for the Republicans.
Whoever the GOP presidential nominee is needs to have a 50 state strategy. Period.
Anything less gives the Democrats a glimmer of hope.
It means that the California Republican party needs to make a serious effort at this time.
It needs to be anywhere and everywhere to register new voters. It needs to get its elected officials, few that there are, a lot of face time. They need to emphasize that nothing will change for California or the United States until there is new leadership. It needs to be very serious about candidate recruitment. Not some star-power "savior" that many thought Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger was to be. No, it needs to have a serious candidate to run against Sen. Diane Feinstein. I make the case that Congressman David Dreier would be that kind of candidate. But it is an effort that needs to be done yesterday.
The numbers are going to Republican favor. But we need to capitalize on it.
In other words, we need to put California in play in 2012.
If the Democrats have to spend time and money to keep California in their column, then it is a bad sign for the party.
Oh, one more thing about the Field Poll is that it is perceived to be a polling group that favors Democrats. If that is the case, the numbers may be even worse. And it is of registered voters, not likely voters. Again, that usually favors Democrats.
Although the Suckramento Bee goes to great legnths to tout a bad poll favorably to the Dear Leader, President Obama, the reality is that his numbers suck. And to suck like this over a year from election day, it is not a good sign. It is something the Republicans need to really think about. Making California at least a competitive if not a swing state.
The suckage of the Dear Leader, President Obama, has finally hit California. And it will not get any better very soon.
And that is according to the latest Field Poll that shows the Dear Leader, President Obama, only getting a 46% positive rating. And only 49% would actually vote to reelect him at this time.
In seemingly perpetual Blue California, these have got to be alarming numbers.
And particularly after last night's Republican blowout in the New York state ninth congressional special election, this has got to worry Team Obama and California Democrats in particular.
But when you look at this graphic, it can not be a good sign for the Democrats.
Sure, their groups such as Blacks, Hispanics are still in the Dear Leader, President Obama's corner. But look at the loss of support. Among Black Californians the Dear Leader, President Obama, has lost 12% and only has 78% support. Hispanics, still continue to support the Dear Leader, President Obama and he has negligible loss of support with only three percent. Among Asians the Dear Leader, President Obama, has suffered his worst drain of support. A fully 16% loss of support. Only 48% of Asians are in the Dear Leader, President Obama's corner.
And in the political groupings, the Dear Leader, President Obama, has lost 10% of fellow Democrat support and only 69% of Democrats support him today. The Republicans are basically unchanged with 78% opposing the Dear Leader, President Obama. And the independent voters are essentially even, with the Dear Leader, President Obama, losing 13% of support.
And only 49% would even want to reelect the dude, in California, shows that the Republicans have a once-in-blue-moon chance to pull off an upset in this state.
If conventional wisdom holds out, the only time candidates of either party will pay attention to California will be to get cash infusions.
The Democrats will take it for granted and the Republicans will not even try.
That thinking has to change for the Republicans.
Whoever the GOP presidential nominee is needs to have a 50 state strategy. Period.
Anything less gives the Democrats a glimmer of hope.
It means that the California Republican party needs to make a serious effort at this time.
It needs to be anywhere and everywhere to register new voters. It needs to get its elected officials, few that there are, a lot of face time. They need to emphasize that nothing will change for California or the United States until there is new leadership. It needs to be very serious about candidate recruitment. Not some star-power "savior" that many thought Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger was to be. No, it needs to have a serious candidate to run against Sen. Diane Feinstein. I make the case that Congressman David Dreier would be that kind of candidate. But it is an effort that needs to be done yesterday.
The numbers are going to Republican favor. But we need to capitalize on it.
In other words, we need to put California in play in 2012.
If the Democrats have to spend time and money to keep California in their column, then it is a bad sign for the party.
Oh, one more thing about the Field Poll is that it is perceived to be a polling group that favors Democrats. If that is the case, the numbers may be even worse. And it is of registered voters, not likely voters. Again, that usually favors Democrats.
Although the Suckramento Bee goes to great legnths to tout a bad poll favorably to the Dear Leader, President Obama, the reality is that his numbers suck. And to suck like this over a year from election day, it is not a good sign. It is something the Republicans need to really think about. Making California at least a competitive if not a swing state.
The suckage of the Dear Leader, President Obama, has finally hit California. And it will not get any better very soon.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
IT'S OFFICIAL! REPUBLICAN TURNER WINS NEW YORK 9TH CONGRESSIONAL RACE!
This is the biggest upset in recent memory!
Republican Bob Turner defeated Democrat David Weprin in the New York state special election to replace the disgraced former congressman, Anthony Weiner.
Keep this in mind.
The New York state ninth congressional district is two things.
Overwhelmingly Jewish. Overwhelmingly Democrat.
Even with the former congressman, Mr. Weiner, forced to resign in disgrace, one would think that pretty much any Democrat could keep this district in Democrat hands.
Well, you would be wrong.
This Jewish, Democrat district rejected one of their own in Assemblyman Weprin and put in Roman Catholic Republican Bob Turner to finish out the term.
Even more surprising is that it was not even close.
Mr. Turner won with 53% of the vote to Mr. Weprin's 47%.
As I noted here, there is no spin about this.
It is a rejection of the Democrats and the Dear Leader, President Obama.
If they do see this for what it is and change course in a hurry, they better enjoy this one term they have had to fundamentally transform America.
In the meantime, the Republicans have something to celebrate in winning such a Democrat district as the New York state ninth congressional.
Republican Bob Turner defeated Democrat David Weprin in the New York state special election to replace the disgraced former congressman, Anthony Weiner.
Keep this in mind.
The New York state ninth congressional district is two things.
Overwhelmingly Jewish. Overwhelmingly Democrat.
Even with the former congressman, Mr. Weiner, forced to resign in disgrace, one would think that pretty much any Democrat could keep this district in Democrat hands.
Well, you would be wrong.
This Jewish, Democrat district rejected one of their own in Assemblyman Weprin and put in Roman Catholic Republican Bob Turner to finish out the term.
Even more surprising is that it was not even close.
Mr. Turner won with 53% of the vote to Mr. Weprin's 47%.
As I noted here, there is no spin about this.
It is a rejection of the Democrats and the Dear Leader, President Obama.
If they do see this for what it is and change course in a hurry, they better enjoy this one term they have had to fundamentally transform America.
In the meantime, the Republicans have something to celebrate in winning such a Democrat district as the New York state ninth congressional.
Will Republicans Win Both House Special Elections Tonight?
Well, I think that it looks more and more likely that the Republicans are going to have a smashing election night, keeping one seat in Nevada and winning one in New York City.
The race for the New York state ninth congressional district is stunning no matter the way it turns out. Because it is a district that is overwhelmingly Jewish and Democrat, the fact that a Roman Catholic Republican in on the precipice of pulling such an upset is a serious sign that the Democrats in general, and the Dear Leader, President Obama, in particular, are in huge trouble.
Sorry Dems, this will not be spinable if Bob Turner pulls off the win over David Weprin.
After all, Mr. Weprin is a seasoned pol that has served on the New York City city council and currently a member of the New York state assembly. And before you Dems buy the "this was not a good candidate line", forget it. Mr. Weprin won in 2010 with 67% of the vote. A little better than the man he hopes to succeed, the disgrace Anthony Weiner.
If this solid Democrat district is ready to go right, what about the Nevada race to replace former congressman now Sen. Dean Heller?
This is Nevada's most solid Republican district and Mark Amodei has about 58% of the vote with 35% of the vote counted. The Democrat, Kate Marshall, is lagging behind with about 37% of the vote.
So, a big hold and a pickup can only embolden the Republicans. And it should.
Because it is a total repudiation of the Dear Leader, President Obama and his policies.
In the New York state election, it may be a huge result of what is seen as a very anti-Israel bias in this administration. And it is. Sure, they will not jump the shark and support in the United Nations a vote to recognize a Palestinian state. But it is an overall feeling that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is much more sympathetic to Palestinians than Israel. Again, that would be correct.
And that portends further problems for the Democrat party in general. Because they depend on a lot of their money from Jews, if they sense that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is in serious trouble, why put their money on a sinking ship? Many Jewish Democrats can sit the presidential race out. Or do what former New York City mayor Ed Koch did. Endorse the Republican in the congressional special election.
Now the key for the Republicans is not just to celebrate but use these results to seriously cultivate Jewish voters. Even if only 30% of Jewish voters vote Republican next year, that is all she wrote for the Democrats and the Dear Leader, President Obama.
But tonight, it looks like it is time to celebrate a couple of big wins!
The race for the New York state ninth congressional district is stunning no matter the way it turns out. Because it is a district that is overwhelmingly Jewish and Democrat, the fact that a Roman Catholic Republican in on the precipice of pulling such an upset is a serious sign that the Democrats in general, and the Dear Leader, President Obama, in particular, are in huge trouble.
Sorry Dems, this will not be spinable if Bob Turner pulls off the win over David Weprin.
After all, Mr. Weprin is a seasoned pol that has served on the New York City city council and currently a member of the New York state assembly. And before you Dems buy the "this was not a good candidate line", forget it. Mr. Weprin won in 2010 with 67% of the vote. A little better than the man he hopes to succeed, the disgrace Anthony Weiner.
If this solid Democrat district is ready to go right, what about the Nevada race to replace former congressman now Sen. Dean Heller?
This is Nevada's most solid Republican district and Mark Amodei has about 58% of the vote with 35% of the vote counted. The Democrat, Kate Marshall, is lagging behind with about 37% of the vote.
So, a big hold and a pickup can only embolden the Republicans. And it should.
Because it is a total repudiation of the Dear Leader, President Obama and his policies.
In the New York state election, it may be a huge result of what is seen as a very anti-Israel bias in this administration. And it is. Sure, they will not jump the shark and support in the United Nations a vote to recognize a Palestinian state. But it is an overall feeling that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is much more sympathetic to Palestinians than Israel. Again, that would be correct.
And that portends further problems for the Democrat party in general. Because they depend on a lot of their money from Jews, if they sense that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is in serious trouble, why put their money on a sinking ship? Many Jewish Democrats can sit the presidential race out. Or do what former New York City mayor Ed Koch did. Endorse the Republican in the congressional special election.
Now the key for the Republicans is not just to celebrate but use these results to seriously cultivate Jewish voters. Even if only 30% of Jewish voters vote Republican next year, that is all she wrote for the Democrats and the Dear Leader, President Obama.
But tonight, it looks like it is time to celebrate a couple of big wins!
Monday, September 12, 2011
The Way The Dear Leader Is Paying For His "Jobs" Bill? Why WE Are!
If anyone is surprised, don't be. The Dear Leader, President Obama gave his vaunted "jobs speech" last Thursday. He implored congress to pass it now. At the time there was not an actual proposal.
Now, the Dear Leader, President Obama has made his proposal.
The tab for this "jobs bill" is about $447,000,000,000. And the Dear Leader, President Obama, wants to raise taxes by about $421,000,000,000.
Peachy, Baracky. Just peachy, Baracky.
And of course we are told that it is not really tax hikes. It is just "closing up loopholes" that the eeeeevvvvviiilllll rich have. You know, those people making over $250,000 a year.
Oops! Check that.
Guess what? Now an eeeeevvvvviiilllll rich b------ is an individual making $200,000 year.
See, wealth gets lowered when a Democrat is in charge. Figuratively and literally.
While again, we are told it is really ending so-called tax breaks, it is a tax hike, no matter how one Clintonizes the language. And what is funny is that all of this class warfare only raises about $400,000,000,000 according to the above linked article.
So where else does Team Dear Leader think the money is going to come from?
Well, here are three other areas that they believe they can get all the money to pay for this "jobs bill":
A proposal to treat carried interest earned by investment fund managers as ordinary income rather than taxing it at capital gains rates, which would raise $18 billion.
Eliminating certain oil and gas industry tax breaks that would raise $40 billion.
A change in corporate jet depreciation rules that would raise $3 billion
Yeah, make sure to nail those corporate jet people! And the equally eeeeevvvvviiilllll oil and gas companies! And if you just change the wording, making certain capital gains into regular income, well then you are not going after capital gains, right?!
Well, there you are. That is how the Dear Leader, President Obama, wants to pay for this "jobs bill".
It is called, spell it together, T A X E S!
It is a power grab to take money out of the private sector, give it to the government and let them dole it out to hire, well what exactly?
Why how about hiring teachers? That is where a lot of the money will go. And how about construction workers? They will be working on the shovel-ready projects. But wait, was that not supposed to happen when that so-called "stimulus" bill was passed in 2009? And what about police officers? By the way, do you notice that all mentioned will be working for. . .the government?!
Now to be fair, the Dear Leader, President Obama, does want to give some tax breaks to small business. Small businesses that hire chronically unemployed. That is defined as six months out of work or more. No, no, no. Not the most qualified. No, if they are not long-term unemployed, don't expect a break from the feds.
This is not serious. This is simply More Failed Stimulus Part Deux.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, is betting that congressional Republicans will give in because there are supposed tax cuts. But the tax hikes make the cuts, well not cuts at all. It is all flim-flam.
At the end of the day, this is about making the government bigger and more intrusive. And it is under the guise of a "jobs bill".
A "jobs bill" that will be an expensive one at the expense of private sector growth.
Now, the Dear Leader, President Obama has made his proposal.
The tab for this "jobs bill" is about $447,000,000,000. And the Dear Leader, President Obama, wants to raise taxes by about $421,000,000,000.
Peachy, Baracky. Just peachy, Baracky.
And of course we are told that it is not really tax hikes. It is just "closing up loopholes" that the eeeeevvvvviiilllll rich have. You know, those people making over $250,000 a year.
Oops! Check that.
Guess what? Now an eeeeevvvvviiilllll rich b------ is an individual making $200,000 year.
See, wealth gets lowered when a Democrat is in charge. Figuratively and literally.
While again, we are told it is really ending so-called tax breaks, it is a tax hike, no matter how one Clintonizes the language. And what is funny is that all of this class warfare only raises about $400,000,000,000 according to the above linked article.
So where else does Team Dear Leader think the money is going to come from?
Well, here are three other areas that they believe they can get all the money to pay for this "jobs bill":
A proposal to treat carried interest earned by investment fund managers as ordinary income rather than taxing it at capital gains rates, which would raise $18 billion.
Eliminating certain oil and gas industry tax breaks that would raise $40 billion.
A change in corporate jet depreciation rules that would raise $3 billion
Yeah, make sure to nail those corporate jet people! And the equally eeeeevvvvviiilllll oil and gas companies! And if you just change the wording, making certain capital gains into regular income, well then you are not going after capital gains, right?!
Well, there you are. That is how the Dear Leader, President Obama, wants to pay for this "jobs bill".
It is called, spell it together, T A X E S!
It is a power grab to take money out of the private sector, give it to the government and let them dole it out to hire, well what exactly?
Why how about hiring teachers? That is where a lot of the money will go. And how about construction workers? They will be working on the shovel-ready projects. But wait, was that not supposed to happen when that so-called "stimulus" bill was passed in 2009? And what about police officers? By the way, do you notice that all mentioned will be working for. . .the government?!
Now to be fair, the Dear Leader, President Obama, does want to give some tax breaks to small business. Small businesses that hire chronically unemployed. That is defined as six months out of work or more. No, no, no. Not the most qualified. No, if they are not long-term unemployed, don't expect a break from the feds.
This is not serious. This is simply More Failed Stimulus Part Deux.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, is betting that congressional Republicans will give in because there are supposed tax cuts. But the tax hikes make the cuts, well not cuts at all. It is all flim-flam.
At the end of the day, this is about making the government bigger and more intrusive. And it is under the guise of a "jobs bill".
A "jobs bill" that will be an expensive one at the expense of private sector growth.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Can We Ask What Is Wrong With Paul Krugman?
So called brilliant economist Paul Krugman is paid to write for the Gray Old Lady, The New York Times.
Do you wonder why they pay him at all when you read crap like this.
Really, on the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D. C.?
OK, he basically says what the left really believes.
That it is wrong for us to have used the armed forces of the United States to go after the terrorists and their allies.
But lets start with the commemorations being subdued.
What the hell do you want, Paul? Do you want a celebration? I mean, hey dude, lets party! Its the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks! I do not know any better reason to get tanked!
What a douche bag you are, Paul.
Of course it should be subdued and reverent. After all, nearly 3,000 were killed on that fateful Tuesday in September.
But then Paul accuses people of "cashing in" on the terrorist attacks. And accuses certain people of being "fake heroes" such as former police commissioner Bernard Kerik, former mayor Rudy Giuliani and former president George W. Bush.
Exactly what does he mean by "fake heroes"?
I do not believe that any of the named men claimed to be heroes. In fact, they all seemed rather not comfortable being thrust in the spotlight as they were. Really Paul, do you think that these guys were salivating at something like this to happen so that they could "cash in"?
Once again Paul, you are a douche bag.
There is another paragraph of insipidness, but the last line shows the coward that Paul Krugman is:
I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.
So what, because you don't want to "cash in" by offending people on a day that should not be like it is? Or is it because you are but a chicken. BAK! BAK! BAK! BAK! BAK! BAK! BAK!
I'm going with chicken.
If you truly believe that what you wrote is something good, edifying and worthwhile, have the testicles to defend it.
Because it is not the conscience of a liberal.
It is the rantings of an unhinged, over-the-edge Bush-hater.
Look, there is room to have an honest discussion on whether or not some of the actions after the terrorist attacks were the right thing to do. But Paul, you do not want to have that kind of dialogue. You want to do what you accuse the conservative side of doing. You want to smear and, quite honestly, make up stuff as you go along.
It is why conservatives tend to tire of people like Paul Krugman.
Because on the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he throws a bomb on a somber day.
Do you wonder why they pay him at all when you read crap like this.
Really, on the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D. C.?
OK, he basically says what the left really believes.
That it is wrong for us to have used the armed forces of the United States to go after the terrorists and their allies.
But lets start with the commemorations being subdued.
What the hell do you want, Paul? Do you want a celebration? I mean, hey dude, lets party! Its the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks! I do not know any better reason to get tanked!
What a douche bag you are, Paul.
Of course it should be subdued and reverent. After all, nearly 3,000 were killed on that fateful Tuesday in September.
But then Paul accuses people of "cashing in" on the terrorist attacks. And accuses certain people of being "fake heroes" such as former police commissioner Bernard Kerik, former mayor Rudy Giuliani and former president George W. Bush.
Exactly what does he mean by "fake heroes"?
I do not believe that any of the named men claimed to be heroes. In fact, they all seemed rather not comfortable being thrust in the spotlight as they were. Really Paul, do you think that these guys were salivating at something like this to happen so that they could "cash in"?
Once again Paul, you are a douche bag.
There is another paragraph of insipidness, but the last line shows the coward that Paul Krugman is:
I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.
So what, because you don't want to "cash in" by offending people on a day that should not be like it is? Or is it because you are but a chicken. BAK! BAK! BAK! BAK! BAK! BAK! BAK!
I'm going with chicken.
If you truly believe that what you wrote is something good, edifying and worthwhile, have the testicles to defend it.
Because it is not the conscience of a liberal.
It is the rantings of an unhinged, over-the-edge Bush-hater.
Look, there is room to have an honest discussion on whether or not some of the actions after the terrorist attacks were the right thing to do. But Paul, you do not want to have that kind of dialogue. You want to do what you accuse the conservative side of doing. You want to smear and, quite honestly, make up stuff as you go along.
It is why conservatives tend to tire of people like Paul Krugman.
Because on the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he throws a bomb on a somber day.
9/11 Attacks Recap In Less Than 20 Minutes
Over at Glen Beck's news website, The Blaze, is a recap of the horrific events of Tuesday, September 11, 2001.
It is a cut-down version of the coverage from the Fox News Channel as events unfolded. It is about 17 minutes from the initial reports of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center in New York City. And of course ends with the second tower coming down.
It is hard to watch, but a necessary reminder of why this day is what it is for so many Americans.
Regrettably, too many Americans want to forget that day. And in many cases, I understand why. But some just do not like to deal in reality. Some get more excited about the upcoming reality show of the day, thinking that is real life.
But, this is real life. Thousands upon thousands of Americans were directly or indirectly affected by the terror attacks. And we do need to deal with them. And not just on anniversary's or milestones. But everyday. For this is a long war. A war that may not end a la World War II.
If there is noting else today, watch this to remember why 9/11 is not just another date on the calendar.
It is a cut-down version of the coverage from the Fox News Channel as events unfolded. It is about 17 minutes from the initial reports of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center in New York City. And of course ends with the second tower coming down.
It is hard to watch, but a necessary reminder of why this day is what it is for so many Americans.
Regrettably, too many Americans want to forget that day. And in many cases, I understand why. But some just do not like to deal in reality. Some get more excited about the upcoming reality show of the day, thinking that is real life.
But, this is real life. Thousands upon thousands of Americans were directly or indirectly affected by the terror attacks. And we do need to deal with them. And not just on anniversary's or milestones. But everyday. For this is a long war. A war that may not end a la World War II.
If there is noting else today, watch this to remember why 9/11 is not just another date on the calendar.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Remembering 9/11/01
As the tenth anniversary of the radical Islamofacsist terrorist attacks on the Untied States is here, it is important to remember where we were, what we were thinking and how this one event has changed our nation for ever.
My memory of 09/11/01 is that it was supposed to be a very exciting day in the RVFTLC abode.
Our son, at that point a junior in college, was to embark to France and participate in a semester study abroad program.
It was an early start for Mrs. RVFTLC and our son. They were up around 4am, out of the house by about 4:30am or 5am. Needless to say I had to go to work that day, I was not going with them for the big sendoff. But I did say goodbye.
I got up a little before 6am, let Scout the Wonder Dog out in the back yard and began the morning routine. I was shaving and listening to Hugh Hewitt. He was on in the AM back then. He was talking about some plane hitting the World Trade Center in New York City. At that point, it was about the one plane but then the second plane had hit. It was all surreal from that point on.
Since no one of us had a cell phone at that time (yeah, all resistant to modern technology!) I could not reach the missus and find out what was going on.
I continued to get ready for work and after showering, heard that the plane had hit the Pentagon in Washington, D. C.
If I was not certain up to that point, I sure as heck was that the United States was under attack.
I was getting very worried. I did not know if our son was on the plane yet. Whether or not it had taken off.
Then on the way to work I heard that all flights in the air were going to be diverted and United States airspace was being closed.
Now worry was beginning to become controlled panic.
I got to work and called home. No answer.
We were all watching the television that we brought from out lunchroom to the main office floor. Everything was happening so fast. There were unconfirmed reports of more attacks. And of course, there was me wondering if our son was somewhere over the air. If he was going to have to land somewhere out of the United States. Even the thought, however fleeting, that maybe something was going on his plane.
Then in the late morning, Mrs. RVFTLC called. Our son never got on the plane. Los Angeles International airport was evacuated. And there was a huge line of cars that were trying to get out. And all were being searched.
That fateful day, I had an appointment to get a CAT scan at my local hospital.
As it turned out, we were told to close up the office after 12noon and we all went home.
When I got home, I gave the biggest hug to everyone that I could.
It was that kind of day.
Mrs. RVFTLC took me to the appointment. On the way, I broke down. I just started crying. I could not believe what had happened. I just could not really think that a few men with nothing more than box cutters and knives could have taken over four jets and three of the four caused such destruction.
I took care of my test and we went home.
It was all surreal.
Even with all the television station on cable, not one did not have something about the attacks. There was no escaping what had happened. There was no levity. And maybe there was something on one of movie channels, but we were cheap and did not have any.
All we could do is sit and watch. And watch. And watch.
And we were sad for our son. He was the last of his group and it just seemed like he would never get to France.
The good news, what little there was, is that about a week and a half later, he went off to France.
But it was a new world. Mrs. RVFTLC was not all pleased he was taking the trip of a lifetime. But I assured her, I believe correctly, that France has had terrorist attacks before. If anything, he would be safer there than here. And he was.
That day was an amazing day. It brought to light the evil of radical Islam. The evil that is al-Qaeda. It showed that a primitive way of terror could reap more destruction than the most brilliant plans of military leaders all over the world.
It was the day that changed all of us, for better or worse, forever. It is a day I will never forget. And we should never ever forget that we are in a long war against radical Islamicfacsists. Not Islam. It is to us what the Cold War was to our parents and their generation.
God bless the United States of America.
My memory of 09/11/01 is that it was supposed to be a very exciting day in the RVFTLC abode.
Our son, at that point a junior in college, was to embark to France and participate in a semester study abroad program.
It was an early start for Mrs. RVFTLC and our son. They were up around 4am, out of the house by about 4:30am or 5am. Needless to say I had to go to work that day, I was not going with them for the big sendoff. But I did say goodbye.
I got up a little before 6am, let Scout the Wonder Dog out in the back yard and began the morning routine. I was shaving and listening to Hugh Hewitt. He was on in the AM back then. He was talking about some plane hitting the World Trade Center in New York City. At that point, it was about the one plane but then the second plane had hit. It was all surreal from that point on.
Since no one of us had a cell phone at that time (yeah, all resistant to modern technology!) I could not reach the missus and find out what was going on.
I continued to get ready for work and after showering, heard that the plane had hit the Pentagon in Washington, D. C.
If I was not certain up to that point, I sure as heck was that the United States was under attack.
I was getting very worried. I did not know if our son was on the plane yet. Whether or not it had taken off.
Then on the way to work I heard that all flights in the air were going to be diverted and United States airspace was being closed.
Now worry was beginning to become controlled panic.
I got to work and called home. No answer.
We were all watching the television that we brought from out lunchroom to the main office floor. Everything was happening so fast. There were unconfirmed reports of more attacks. And of course, there was me wondering if our son was somewhere over the air. If he was going to have to land somewhere out of the United States. Even the thought, however fleeting, that maybe something was going on his plane.
Then in the late morning, Mrs. RVFTLC called. Our son never got on the plane. Los Angeles International airport was evacuated. And there was a huge line of cars that were trying to get out. And all were being searched.
That fateful day, I had an appointment to get a CAT scan at my local hospital.
As it turned out, we were told to close up the office after 12noon and we all went home.
When I got home, I gave the biggest hug to everyone that I could.
It was that kind of day.
Mrs. RVFTLC took me to the appointment. On the way, I broke down. I just started crying. I could not believe what had happened. I just could not really think that a few men with nothing more than box cutters and knives could have taken over four jets and three of the four caused such destruction.
I took care of my test and we went home.
It was all surreal.
Even with all the television station on cable, not one did not have something about the attacks. There was no escaping what had happened. There was no levity. And maybe there was something on one of movie channels, but we were cheap and did not have any.
All we could do is sit and watch. And watch. And watch.
And we were sad for our son. He was the last of his group and it just seemed like he would never get to France.
The good news, what little there was, is that about a week and a half later, he went off to France.
But it was a new world. Mrs. RVFTLC was not all pleased he was taking the trip of a lifetime. But I assured her, I believe correctly, that France has had terrorist attacks before. If anything, he would be safer there than here. And he was.
That day was an amazing day. It brought to light the evil of radical Islam. The evil that is al-Qaeda. It showed that a primitive way of terror could reap more destruction than the most brilliant plans of military leaders all over the world.
It was the day that changed all of us, for better or worse, forever. It is a day I will never forget. And we should never ever forget that we are in a long war against radical Islamicfacsists. Not Islam. It is to us what the Cold War was to our parents and their generation.
God bless the United States of America.
Michael Boobberg Should Be Impeached As New York City Mayor
As the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack is less than 24 hours away, it is absofinglutely amazing that the mayor of New York City, Michael Boobberg* is defending a decision that essentially dilutes the meaning of what happened that fateful Tuesday morn 10 years ago.Mayor Boobberg has excluded members of the clergy, fire and police first responders from the ceremonies tomorrow at Ground Zero.
The reason is, as I write, absolfinglutely amazing.
According to Mayor Boobberg,
“We just don’t have room for them.”
Whiskey?! Tango?! Foxtrot?!
Do not have room for those who can comfort and heal a nation that is still at war against radical Islamofacsist terrorists? Do not have room for those that risked life and limb to save many that fateful day?
So, Mayor Boobberg, who do you have room for?
Will there be room for politicians, like Mayor Boobberg? How about the Dear Leader, President Obama? After all, the Dear Leader, President Obama, gave us his take on why the events of 9/11 happened. Too bad that the 19 participants were all highly educated men. But you bet he will be there.
The justification that Mayor Boobberg regarding the clergy is that there is a separation of church and state in the constitution. Unfortunately, there is a differnce between a letter written by then President Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptists and what is actually in the constitution. The relevant first amendment is this:
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
So, Mayor Boobberg is wrong on this point. If he wanted a way of guidance, he could have looked at the National Prayer Service held in Washington, D. C. at the National Cathedral on Friday, September 14, 2001. There were representatives from Protestant Christianity, Roman Catholics, Jewish, Islamic, and I believe even non-monotheistic religious representation.
I guess had Mayor Boobberg been president then-God forbid-there would have not been such an event.
But why is there not representation of the first responders?
Again, Mayor Boobberg does address the fact that the families of the victims, many first responders, will be at the ceremonies.
But why not a stronger presence?
Again, no room at the inn would be His Honor's response.
It is not a good enough reason.
Make the room. Find a way. After all, this is the United States and the greatest city in the United States, New York City. You really mean to tell me that they can not have a few clergy and first responder survivors at a ceremony on the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks?
Of course not.
But this is par for the course and an attempt to whitewash what happened that day in September, 2001.
The United States was attacked by radical Islamofacsist terrorists in the worst attack on it's soil since the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. No, check that. Hawai'i was not even a state then. The worst attack by a foreign entity since the War of 1812.
There is no way to whitewash that and there should not be any whitewashing of the event.
People like Mayor Boobberg and his ilk are the problem. They do not want to deal with reality.
And their reality is kind of weird. That uniting all people from different faiths is bad. That you can't find some place for those that risked their lives and lived to tell about it.
No, I do not know why Mayor Boobberg is not impeached as mayor. He has been a terrible mayor and indeed undoing a lot of what Rudy Giuliani did as mayor. The good things.
I do not understand how this is what the tenth anniversary of the terror attacks of 9/11 has devolved into. And some one should answer for that. And that should be Mayor Michael Boobberg.
*Yes, I know it is Michael Bloomberg. But on this he is Boobberg!
The reason is, as I write, absolfinglutely amazing.
According to Mayor Boobberg,
“We just don’t have room for them.”
Whiskey?! Tango?! Foxtrot?!
Do not have room for those who can comfort and heal a nation that is still at war against radical Islamofacsist terrorists? Do not have room for those that risked life and limb to save many that fateful day?
So, Mayor Boobberg, who do you have room for?
Will there be room for politicians, like Mayor Boobberg? How about the Dear Leader, President Obama? After all, the Dear Leader, President Obama, gave us his take on why the events of 9/11 happened. Too bad that the 19 participants were all highly educated men. But you bet he will be there.
The justification that Mayor Boobberg regarding the clergy is that there is a separation of church and state in the constitution. Unfortunately, there is a differnce between a letter written by then President Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptists and what is actually in the constitution. The relevant first amendment is this:
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
So, Mayor Boobberg is wrong on this point. If he wanted a way of guidance, he could have looked at the National Prayer Service held in Washington, D. C. at the National Cathedral on Friday, September 14, 2001. There were representatives from Protestant Christianity, Roman Catholics, Jewish, Islamic, and I believe even non-monotheistic religious representation.
I guess had Mayor Boobberg been president then-God forbid-there would have not been such an event.
But why is there not representation of the first responders?
Again, Mayor Boobberg does address the fact that the families of the victims, many first responders, will be at the ceremonies.
But why not a stronger presence?
Again, no room at the inn would be His Honor's response.
It is not a good enough reason.
Make the room. Find a way. After all, this is the United States and the greatest city in the United States, New York City. You really mean to tell me that they can not have a few clergy and first responder survivors at a ceremony on the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks?
Of course not.
But this is par for the course and an attempt to whitewash what happened that day in September, 2001.
The United States was attacked by radical Islamofacsist terrorists in the worst attack on it's soil since the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. No, check that. Hawai'i was not even a state then. The worst attack by a foreign entity since the War of 1812.
There is no way to whitewash that and there should not be any whitewashing of the event.
People like Mayor Boobberg and his ilk are the problem. They do not want to deal with reality.
And their reality is kind of weird. That uniting all people from different faiths is bad. That you can't find some place for those that risked their lives and lived to tell about it.
No, I do not know why Mayor Boobberg is not impeached as mayor. He has been a terrible mayor and indeed undoing a lot of what Rudy Giuliani did as mayor. The good things.
I do not understand how this is what the tenth anniversary of the terror attacks of 9/11 has devolved into. And some one should answer for that. And that should be Mayor Michael Boobberg.
*Yes, I know it is Michael Bloomberg. But on this he is Boobberg!
Thursday, September 08, 2011
When Will The Economy Improve?
A good question. But the answer is going to upset a lot of people.
As the United States languishes in sluggish economic "growth" of roughly a rip-roaring one percent each quarter this year, unemployment is at 9.1% and a mountain of debt that can make the United States a Weimar Germany, here is the answer.
The economy will not improve until there is a change in leadership at one 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D. C.
In other words, we will have to ride it out until the Dear Leader, President Obama, is defeated by the Republican on November 6, 2012.
While the Dear Leader, President Obama, is trying to throw a Hail Mary with the so-called "jobs speech" just concluded, The Other McCain sums it up very accurately here.
The Republican House is not going to pass this proposed legislation just because the Dear Leader, President Obama, comes to Capitol Hill and snaps his fingers and says just do it!
The reality is that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is asking for about $450,000,000,000 to continue to tinker with the economy. Somehow, we are to believe that this will be "revenue neutral" when there is nothing to suggest that somewhere, somehow, there will NOT be a tax hike of some kind. The real Dream of The Dear Leader. To tell his base 'See, I raised taxes on the eeeeevvvvviiilllll rich!'.
The fact is that the so-called economic stimulus plan passed shortly after he became president was supposed to do the trick. It was supposed to keep unemployment from surpassing eight percent.
Oops! My bad!
I guess 9.1% is the new math.
But the fact is that from day one, the Dear Leader, President Obama, has wanted to remake the United States into Leftytopia.
Socialized medicine. Increased unionization. Tax hikes. Regulation. Pushing the "green" economy. The list goes on.
But the reality is that the market, the free market, has said resoundingly no, no, no.
But that will not stop the American left.
For this is the last gasp for a while, I am afraid, for them.
The American people in the last presidential race were smitten by a dude that whispered sweet nothings. He was focused on great speechery and kept the issues down to about three.
And yet, over two and a half years later, the United States is worse off economically.
It is playing like a second fiddle to the rest of the world.
The United States should be leading but, alas, it is not doing anything that would signal confidence in leadership.
Which is the point.
Leadership needs to change.
The Republicans need to not get caught up in letting the Obamawhore media and other allies of this White House set the agenda.
The Republicans, no matter who emerges as the nominee, needs to focus on the abyss that has become the American economy. And be on offense on any issue including the so-called social issues. Which in Leftytopia are only same-sex marriage and abortion.
When will the economy improve, I ask?
When the Dear Leader, President Obama, is retired to the private sector he so loathes on November 6, 2012.
As the United States languishes in sluggish economic "growth" of roughly a rip-roaring one percent each quarter this year, unemployment is at 9.1% and a mountain of debt that can make the United States a Weimar Germany, here is the answer.
The economy will not improve until there is a change in leadership at one 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D. C.
In other words, we will have to ride it out until the Dear Leader, President Obama, is defeated by the Republican on November 6, 2012.
While the Dear Leader, President Obama, is trying to throw a Hail Mary with the so-called "jobs speech" just concluded, The Other McCain sums it up very accurately here.
The Republican House is not going to pass this proposed legislation just because the Dear Leader, President Obama, comes to Capitol Hill and snaps his fingers and says just do it!
The reality is that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is asking for about $450,000,000,000 to continue to tinker with the economy. Somehow, we are to believe that this will be "revenue neutral" when there is nothing to suggest that somewhere, somehow, there will NOT be a tax hike of some kind. The real Dream of The Dear Leader. To tell his base 'See, I raised taxes on the eeeeevvvvviiilllll rich!'.
The fact is that the so-called economic stimulus plan passed shortly after he became president was supposed to do the trick. It was supposed to keep unemployment from surpassing eight percent.
Oops! My bad!
I guess 9.1% is the new math.
But the fact is that from day one, the Dear Leader, President Obama, has wanted to remake the United States into Leftytopia.
Socialized medicine. Increased unionization. Tax hikes. Regulation. Pushing the "green" economy. The list goes on.
But the reality is that the market, the free market, has said resoundingly no, no, no.
But that will not stop the American left.
For this is the last gasp for a while, I am afraid, for them.
The American people in the last presidential race were smitten by a dude that whispered sweet nothings. He was focused on great speechery and kept the issues down to about three.
And yet, over two and a half years later, the United States is worse off economically.
It is playing like a second fiddle to the rest of the world.
The United States should be leading but, alas, it is not doing anything that would signal confidence in leadership.
Which is the point.
Leadership needs to change.
The Republicans need to not get caught up in letting the Obamawhore media and other allies of this White House set the agenda.
The Republicans, no matter who emerges as the nominee, needs to focus on the abyss that has become the American economy. And be on offense on any issue including the so-called social issues. Which in Leftytopia are only same-sex marriage and abortion.
When will the economy improve, I ask?
When the Dear Leader, President Obama, is retired to the private sector he so loathes on November 6, 2012.
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Can A Republican Defeat The Dear Leader In California?
Well, I do think that under the right conditions, it is possible that the Republican presidential candidate can defeat the Dear Leader, President Obama, in next year's presidential elections.
Consider this from of all places the Left Angeles Times.
Yesterday a poll was released that showed what I believe is an ominous sign for the Dear Leader, President Obama. That he is only at 50% positive in the poll. And 43% do not think he is doing a heck of a job.Once you get past the spin, that these are good numbers, the reality is that they are weak and bound to get weaker so long as the economy continues in major suckage. And yes, it sure is here in Blue California.
And this paragraph has to change if the Dear Leader, President Obama, does not want to be fighting for prize of California's 55 electoral votes:
By 50% to 43%, voters approved of Obama's handling of the presidency, down from a high of 60% a year after his election. But the state's three most potent voter groups — women, nonpartisan voters and Latinos — remained firmly in his corner. Fifty-five percent of women and nonpartisan voters were satisfied with the job the president is doing, a judgment shared by 59% of Latinos.
In a state like California, those numbers need to get higher and fast. Because at the end of the day, people are not going to be voting for the Hope and Change of the last election but what has he done for us lately.
Let's start with the Hispanic voters.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, should be in the mid to high 60 percent range. While he is in the high 50s, and with a bad economy teetering, that number can and will go lower.
Women and non-partisan voters are only at 55%. Among women in California, that should be a higher number. Meaning that there is a chance to at least split the women vote.
So, how can a Republican candidate make a race in California next year?
In the same poll, the numbers are not good for and of the Republican candidates.
Here is how the Dear Leader, President Obama, matches up against the announced Republican candidates:
Obama 57% Bachmann 31%
Obama 56% Perry 32%
Obama 54% Romney 35%
OK, these are not great numbers and Romney has the best at 35%.
But what will drive voters is the state of the economy. And whoever the Republican nominee is will have to pound it into the ground. That as long as the Dear Leader, President Obama, is ruining, er running, the show in the White House, a vote for him ensures another four years of a bad economy.
In another poll today in the same fish wrap, it appears that showing the complexity of the California voter. they seem to be more in the Republican line of thinking.
But in the same poll, voters want the Dear Leader, President Obama, to "stand up" to the Republicans. What ever that means. What, stand up and make larger budget cuts? Again, the complexity of the California voter is so damn hard, no wonder the Republicans give up early.
But here is the thing.
We California Republicans are at rock bottom. We hold not one of the constitutional offices. We are a minority in the state legislature. We only have 19 of the 53 congressional seats. Both senate seats are Democrat.
We need a boost. And the right Republican candidate will do just that.
My advice is simple. The issue that will win California for the Republicans is the economy. It will not matter if the nominee is Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas), Mitt Romney, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, or yes, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
So long as they do not get into minutia and overly obsessed on social issues (those brought up by the left), then we may see a competitive race in in California.
That will be good not only for the Republican party, but the United States as well.
Nearly half of the voters that responded support the need to cut government spending.
Consider this from of all places the Left Angeles Times.
Yesterday a poll was released that showed what I believe is an ominous sign for the Dear Leader, President Obama. That he is only at 50% positive in the poll. And 43% do not think he is doing a heck of a job.Once you get past the spin, that these are good numbers, the reality is that they are weak and bound to get weaker so long as the economy continues in major suckage. And yes, it sure is here in Blue California.
And this paragraph has to change if the Dear Leader, President Obama, does not want to be fighting for prize of California's 55 electoral votes:
By 50% to 43%, voters approved of Obama's handling of the presidency, down from a high of 60% a year after his election. But the state's three most potent voter groups — women, nonpartisan voters and Latinos — remained firmly in his corner. Fifty-five percent of women and nonpartisan voters were satisfied with the job the president is doing, a judgment shared by 59% of Latinos.
In a state like California, those numbers need to get higher and fast. Because at the end of the day, people are not going to be voting for the Hope and Change of the last election but what has he done for us lately.
Let's start with the Hispanic voters.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, should be in the mid to high 60 percent range. While he is in the high 50s, and with a bad economy teetering, that number can and will go lower.
Women and non-partisan voters are only at 55%. Among women in California, that should be a higher number. Meaning that there is a chance to at least split the women vote.
So, how can a Republican candidate make a race in California next year?
In the same poll, the numbers are not good for and of the Republican candidates.
Here is how the Dear Leader, President Obama, matches up against the announced Republican candidates:
Obama 57% Bachmann 31%
Obama 56% Perry 32%
Obama 54% Romney 35%
OK, these are not great numbers and Romney has the best at 35%.
But what will drive voters is the state of the economy. And whoever the Republican nominee is will have to pound it into the ground. That as long as the Dear Leader, President Obama, is ruining, er running, the show in the White House, a vote for him ensures another four years of a bad economy.
In another poll today in the same fish wrap, it appears that showing the complexity of the California voter. they seem to be more in the Republican line of thinking.
But in the same poll, voters want the Dear Leader, President Obama, to "stand up" to the Republicans. What ever that means. What, stand up and make larger budget cuts? Again, the complexity of the California voter is so damn hard, no wonder the Republicans give up early.
But here is the thing.
We California Republicans are at rock bottom. We hold not one of the constitutional offices. We are a minority in the state legislature. We only have 19 of the 53 congressional seats. Both senate seats are Democrat.
We need a boost. And the right Republican candidate will do just that.
My advice is simple. The issue that will win California for the Republicans is the economy. It will not matter if the nominee is Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas), Mitt Romney, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, or yes, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin.
So long as they do not get into minutia and overly obsessed on social issues (those brought up by the left), then we may see a competitive race in in California.
That will be good not only for the Republican party, but the United States as well.
Nearly half of the voters that responded support the need to cut government spending.
Sunday, September 04, 2011
And MORE Cali Craziness-Giving Babysitters Breaks
Yeah, you read that right. It appears that babysitters are rather overworked taking care of children on occasion.
And here comes the Democrat controlled California state legislature to the rescue.
As inane as yesterday's post on fitted sheets, another Nanny-State legislator, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco (Again, of course!)) tries topping that one with Assembly Bill 889.
This would require that babysitters are paid the minimum wage. Given breaks every two hours. And a meal break after five hours. And this would cover domestic workers, caregivers, housekeepers and nannies.
Mr. Ammiano does exclude teenagers and family members from these potential requirements.
Thanks a lot, Mr. Tommy.
So, for instance, you know a college-age person, have used them as a baby sitter before and want them to take care of your children one Saturday night while you have a nice evening. Just the two of you. Well, unless you can have your date night in two hours (I suppose that you can if you go to such places as McDonalds or that fine French fast-food establishment, Jacques de le box!) you will be on the hook to have someone relieve your babysitter so that they can take that break. And if you want to make it dinner and a movie, well after five hours, better have that back-up comeback to the primary babysitter can have that meal break.
Get all of that?
So what will happen to that college student making some extra money if this bill passes? Probably will be SOL for any future jobs.
Now the proponents of the legislation will say that we are exaggerating this kind of result. That in fact this is to protect the "domestic" worker.
No, what it is another attempt to unionize even more domestic workers and force people to hire union members and all the baggage that comes with them.
But if one goes to their website, they do present that as the reason for needing such legislation.
The real problem is that it will take away the abilities of "domestic workers" to set their own guidelines as to the services that they will provide.
Again, no one puts a gun to the head of someone and says you must be a "domestic worker". It is a choice that you make.
Here is what is wrong with the legislation through the eyes of a mom.
Jeanne Sager over at The Stir points out that babysitting is not a regular job. And the following is why babysitters should not be treated the same as "domestic workers":
Your standard babysitter is not on par with a full-time housekeeper. Not only are they not working for you on a consistent basis -- making all that paperwork difficult to put together -- but theirs is a job that can't be planned out to the letter. My main sitter spends all day with my daughter. She eats with her. She plays with her. Sometimes she naps with her. Her "breaks" are on my kid's schedule, just like her meals. That's the nature of childcare.
Get it?! A babysitter is not the same as a housekeeper. A nanny. A caregiver. It is a irregular form of employment. And often the perfect type of job for, as I noted, a college student. There is a quite different relationship between parents and a babysitter. Usually, parents will want to use the same one as often as possible because of the relationship between the children and babysitter. And not every assignment is the same.
But dammit! Mr. Tommy knows better than you, domestic worker, or parents and how they hire and or use a babysitter.
Once again, California sits on a financial landmine. And our vaunted legislators are doing everything in their power to avoid the real tough decisions. But hey, make it harder to get a babysitter, the legislature is on top of that!
And here comes the Democrat controlled California state legislature to the rescue.
As inane as yesterday's post on fitted sheets, another Nanny-State legislator, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco (Again, of course!)) tries topping that one with Assembly Bill 889.
This would require that babysitters are paid the minimum wage. Given breaks every two hours. And a meal break after five hours. And this would cover domestic workers, caregivers, housekeepers and nannies.
Mr. Ammiano does exclude teenagers and family members from these potential requirements.
Thanks a lot, Mr. Tommy.
So, for instance, you know a college-age person, have used them as a baby sitter before and want them to take care of your children one Saturday night while you have a nice evening. Just the two of you. Well, unless you can have your date night in two hours (I suppose that you can if you go to such places as McDonalds or that fine French fast-food establishment, Jacques de le box!) you will be on the hook to have someone relieve your babysitter so that they can take that break. And if you want to make it dinner and a movie, well after five hours, better have that back-up comeback to the primary babysitter can have that meal break.
Get all of that?
So what will happen to that college student making some extra money if this bill passes? Probably will be SOL for any future jobs.
Now the proponents of the legislation will say that we are exaggerating this kind of result. That in fact this is to protect the "domestic" worker.
No, what it is another attempt to unionize even more domestic workers and force people to hire union members and all the baggage that comes with them.
But if one goes to their website, they do present that as the reason for needing such legislation.
The real problem is that it will take away the abilities of "domestic workers" to set their own guidelines as to the services that they will provide.
Again, no one puts a gun to the head of someone and says you must be a "domestic worker". It is a choice that you make.
Here is what is wrong with the legislation through the eyes of a mom.
Jeanne Sager over at The Stir points out that babysitting is not a regular job. And the following is why babysitters should not be treated the same as "domestic workers":
Your standard babysitter is not on par with a full-time housekeeper. Not only are they not working for you on a consistent basis -- making all that paperwork difficult to put together -- but theirs is a job that can't be planned out to the letter. My main sitter spends all day with my daughter. She eats with her. She plays with her. Sometimes she naps with her. Her "breaks" are on my kid's schedule, just like her meals. That's the nature of childcare.
Get it?! A babysitter is not the same as a housekeeper. A nanny. A caregiver. It is a irregular form of employment. And often the perfect type of job for, as I noted, a college student. There is a quite different relationship between parents and a babysitter. Usually, parents will want to use the same one as often as possible because of the relationship between the children and babysitter. And not every assignment is the same.
But dammit! Mr. Tommy knows better than you, domestic worker, or parents and how they hire and or use a babysitter.
Once again, California sits on a financial landmine. And our vaunted legislators are doing everything in their power to avoid the real tough decisions. But hey, make it harder to get a babysitter, the legislature is on top of that!
Did Jerry Lewis Get The Shaft From The MDA?
This being the Labor Day weekend, a tradition in my home growing up was being subjected to watching the Jerry Lewis Labor Day Telethon for the Muscular Dystrophy Association.Yeah, when you are a kid in a one television house, on this one occasion mom and dad said this they will watch. Like it or not.
Yet over the years, and now they are both off to the Glory, I find myself watching with a certain nostalgia. Many of the acts are well beyond their time. Yet it is the one time of year I can watch Norm Crosby.
But this year it is different.
The one time 21 hours beg-a-thon is down to six hours. And there is no Jerry Lewis to be found.
And this is where it is a real unknown how or why it happened.
Some say that Mr. Lewis retired abruptly from the telethon and the MDA. Others say that he was forced out by the MDA and they decided to sever all ties to Mr. Lewis.
Well, there is my school of thought.
That it was both. That Mr. Lewis was being told that this would be it for him. And he did not like being forced out. There was a hubbub and the MDA said please leave and do not let the door hit you on the way out.
But this is how Mr. Lewis is rewarded for giving 60 years of his life to a cause that seemed to be near and dear to his heart?
Yeah, I think that it is crappy.
Sure, one can say that Mr. Lewis was exploitative about what he put on the air. Especially the children. But hey, it is a telethon. People want to see what their money is going to go to, right? And yeah, people do react more positive to giving money if children are shown.
And another critique is that he was way too involved in the show itself.
Well, it did have Mr. Lewis name on it right? I should think that he would have at least some involvement.
My critique is that Mr. Lewis did not get updated acts. That his mindset was stuck somewhere in about 1976. That he needed to go with the times. And that is why the telethon was becoming dated and without a doubt fewer people watching. Or giving cash.
Something right though was being done. After all, it was but three years ago, 2008, that the telethon raised $65,031,393, the all time record. That does not take into account the hundreds of millions raised over the years.
The MDA does owe something better than this to Mr. Lewis. To the many fans of Mr. Lewis. And to those that he tirelessly helped by raising so much money to find a cure.
This year, I do not feel that watching the MDA Labor Day Telethon would be subjection, but affirming a bad decision that helps no one involved.
Yet over the years, and now they are both off to the Glory, I find myself watching with a certain nostalgia. Many of the acts are well beyond their time. Yet it is the one time of year I can watch Norm Crosby.
But this year it is different.
The one time 21 hours beg-a-thon is down to six hours. And there is no Jerry Lewis to be found.
And this is where it is a real unknown how or why it happened.
Some say that Mr. Lewis retired abruptly from the telethon and the MDA. Others say that he was forced out by the MDA and they decided to sever all ties to Mr. Lewis.
Well, there is my school of thought.
That it was both. That Mr. Lewis was being told that this would be it for him. And he did not like being forced out. There was a hubbub and the MDA said please leave and do not let the door hit you on the way out.
But this is how Mr. Lewis is rewarded for giving 60 years of his life to a cause that seemed to be near and dear to his heart?
Yeah, I think that it is crappy.
Sure, one can say that Mr. Lewis was exploitative about what he put on the air. Especially the children. But hey, it is a telethon. People want to see what their money is going to go to, right? And yeah, people do react more positive to giving money if children are shown.
And another critique is that he was way too involved in the show itself.
Well, it did have Mr. Lewis name on it right? I should think that he would have at least some involvement.
My critique is that Mr. Lewis did not get updated acts. That his mindset was stuck somewhere in about 1976. That he needed to go with the times. And that is why the telethon was becoming dated and without a doubt fewer people watching. Or giving cash.
Something right though was being done. After all, it was but three years ago, 2008, that the telethon raised $65,031,393, the all time record. That does not take into account the hundreds of millions raised over the years.
The MDA does owe something better than this to Mr. Lewis. To the many fans of Mr. Lewis. And to those that he tirelessly helped by raising so much money to find a cure.
This year, I do not feel that watching the MDA Labor Day Telethon would be subjection, but affirming a bad decision that helps no one involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)