How can we not see the truth?
I'm listening to B. Hussein talking in Ohio, streaming live from FOXNews.com. Wow. This guy just doesn't quit, does he? That's the issue with stupid people: they're stupid enough to think they're smart and keep doing the stupid things they're doing. It's sort of a vicious cycle. No one knows why God created stupid people, but with them around, I suppose we know why there are smart people.
I'd like to raise a question: what came first, stupid people or smart people? Liberals or stupidity? I'm not going to be like the liberals and act like I know everything about creation, et cetera. I'm just asking out of curiosity what people think about the origin of the liberal and all the psychological and mental disorders associated with liberalism. :)
Anyway, in all seriousness, I honestly believe that B. Hussein is a terrorist. I refuse to compare him to Osama bin Ladin any more because he is worse. When bin Ladin attacks, you know it. It's like getting struck by lightning. That's that. Something big, powerful, and painful.
When B. Hussein attacks, it's like boiling a frog live, slowly raising the temperature until we're completely screwed without realizing it. He is worse because what he does directly impacts every American and will haunt us forever even if the legislation is repealed. When B. Hussein strikes, he has the media behind him, he has Congress behind him, he has "Americans" behind him. He disrespects life, disrespects America and the free market system, he disrespects Americans with opinions aligned with those expressed in that one paper, what's it called... ah, yes, the U.S. Constitution.
Listening to him talk, I see a communist, a liar, a conniving, devious terrorist. I see someone who wants to abolish the free market and knows how to sugar-coat that wish.
I see a terrorist in someone's backyard (not the ones from Gitmo who are already there).
If I ever met with President Obama, I cannot say whether or not I would shake his hand. Would it be immature or patriotic not to? I know how it would be portrayed, of course.
Possible responses with handshake:
1. Pleased to meet you, Mr. bin Ladin.
2. Are you enjoying your stay in America so far, sir?
3. So, have you finished drafting the new Constitution?
4. Something in Arabic.
Obama's arguments for everything he does always include a sob story or two. Well, there are sob stories on both sides. They prove nothing but that the world is imperfect and you can't please everyone. Which seems to be his other argument. "Can't please everyone, so I might as well destroy America while I'm at it."
You know how they fool us? They go after the kindergartners. They teach them about sex, so then they have sex as soon as they're old enough and realize how great abortion is. They teach us how houses, paper, and toilets are bad and we're destroying our Earth, thus creating mindless little soldier-bots to do their bidding. It's evil with a cute face. Ever seen the commercials with little kids talking about saving Earth? Yeah. They teach them that they're no greater than the apes, thus convincing them they are liberals. They teach them to accept gays and shun and/or challenge Christianity. They teach them evolution. They teach them that big corporations are bad, bad, bad. And of course the kids believe it because, after all, they learned it in school.
So what is the answer? Move to North Korea where people are saner? Dig yourself a grave? (Make sure you don't uproot any trees to do it, though.) The answer is to stand and fight. Revolt!
Join a tea party. Sign a petition. Get a job. Run for office. Teach your children. Load your guns. Grab your pitchforks. Light your torches. Shout the truth. Fight for freedom. Make up more motivational three-word sentences!
It will soon be too late. They'll take our guns, our freedom, our rights, our money, our jobs, our torches and pitchforks, our voices, our children. Our hope. Our faith.
Without hope how can we fight back? We cannot be crushed or defeated. It's now or never, because if we don't act now...
Ve iz scrood.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Loopholes
(Quotes from FOXNews.com)
When the Democrats want to find a loophole, there tends to be one.
When Republicans are being unconstitutionally prohibited from enforcing immigration laws that will help keep our country safe, alas! No loopholes are to be found.
For example, the Democrats found that there is no provision in the healthcare bill, or, gasp, the almighty executive order, that would prohibit federal funding of abortion in high-risk insurance pools.
Of course, abortion in these cases would be prohibited unless the life of the mother was in danger, or in the case of rape or incest. Which leaves room for the "health" of the mother, or if the baby has an even conceivable possibility of minor deformities. Which is code for "we cover abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever." You are either for or against abortion. If you're for it at all, you're for it. At all is a modifier, but the meaning is the same.
It doesn't matter what you tell the public. The executive order cannot trump a law. The insistence that you don't cover abortion except in certain cases is not true. YOU STILL COVER ABORTION. Innocent babies still die, no matter how you label it. If I was getting aborted, I wouldn't care if my abortion was termed "covered" or not. The outcome is still the same. And if you support any abortion at all, any abortion at all is supported.
Now for the Republicans' issue. Instead of cracking down on immigration to keep our country safe, the Democrats are engaging in petty squabble over perfectly legitimate legislation. "Well, I have a lot of illegal immigrants on hand right now who can tell you just how illegitimate this law seems to them, how it's impacting their lives and families, how it's making living in America harder for them, illegal immigrants who could tell you just how unfair this monstrosity of a law this really is. Oh, what's that? The immigrants don't speak English? Can we get a translator up here? Ah, yes, thank you. Now, according to our translator, this illegal immigrant thinks that it's not fair that he can't get a job, according to Arizona's law, just because he illegally moved his family here and is now mooching off the taxpayers. He says he applauds Judge Bolton's decision to let him get a job and protect him from racial profiling by invasive officers." Well, then. (Just in case it's not too clear, that's a make-believe scenario.)
Well, it only makes sense to block the toughest parts of a law whose aim is to crack down on illegal immigration, right?
And of course they should be able to get a job. I mean, they're just law-abiding citizens like the rest of us. (Except they don't pay taxes, they aren't citizens, and they broke the law by setting foot in this country. But other than that, yeah, I'm totally happy to remain unemployed for the sake of a drug-smuggling, pot-smoking vagrant who has no intention of respecting the American dream other than to steal it. It's all good.)
There is no reason to oppose any part of this law other than nothing more than a blatant contempt for the American way of life. Borders are there for a reason. Once they become meaningless, once our very identities as Americans become meaningless because anyone can be an American easily (and untaxedly), there will be no more America. At least then Obama can be our President legally.
Get this: the Mexican government applauds the decision (imagine that). Kind of like when Fidel Castro praised Barack Hussein Obama. Wonder what our old buddy Fidel thinks of this? Or is he already on the White House staff?
Yeah, no. It's a step over the line (and the border).
Of course, unless you take "disregarding" to mean "disregarding". If the court "by no means" disregards Arizona's interests in controlling the immigration problem, why are they not allowing Arizona to control the immigration problem?
And if Arizona's interests are consistent with those of the federal government, what's the problem? It is, actually, in the public interest to enforce "preempted laws". The feds are too busy bailing out Wall Street and need a bit of help. And who better to help them than the BORDER STATE with the biggest immigration problem? If they won't let Arizona help, won't let them enforce the laws, who do they expect to get it done? Alaska? How many illegal immigrants from Mexico do you think cross into Alaska every year? I've got a pretty good guess. Maybe Michigan or Wisconsin, North Dakota, Montana, Washington or Oregon? How about Maine? I think they'd do a GREAT job addressing the illegal immigrant problem. I mean, they're in such a prime position to deal with drug traffickers and smugglers from Mexico, don't you think? Hey, let's ask Canada to help!
Or maybe we could let a state pass an effective law to help solve their immigration problem. If Arizona's law isn't what the feds and the courts are looking for, do they have a better plan? Maybe they could make it illegal for a police station to have more than two Latinos in custody the way they do (or at least did) with young Arab men on the airlines (pre-9/11 and possibly post-9/11). That seemed to work well!
If the Arizona law is preempted by federal law, then there shouldn't be a problem. It should be at most helpful, at the least harmless. Correction: it IS at most helpful, at the least harmless. To say there's "nothing wrong" with it is an understatement. It's what the feds should have been doing all along. The federal program should encourage the passage of laws like this if it's immigration they really care about.
Wait a minute. They do care about immigration. Or, rather, immigrants. They think they should get jobs, raise families, get healthcare--all without paying taxes (because only law-abiding citizens do stuff like that). In some ways, the illegal immigrant is more protected, revered, and benefited than the U.S. citizen. If that doesn't scare you... you must be a Democrat.
"This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens," said Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona. I hate to break it to you, Jan, but there's no such thing as a "citizen" anymore.
Great idea. I just hope he doesn't get a lawsuit filed against him by the President of the United Stataes.
Honestly, I cannot comprehend this. First of all, the Arizona law is perfectly legit, and that's an understatement. It's constitutional, it follows federal regulations, and has great potential to impact the illegal immigration situtation in America in a very positive way.
Second, the President should not file a lawsuit against an individual state for an individual state law. It is just wrong. It's communism, that's what it is.
Third and finally, doesn't Obama have better things to do? Like, I don't know, murder innocent babies, pass socialist reform bills, take over Wall Street, bow to foreign royalty, have lunch with Bill Ayers... that kind of thing? Does he really have time to file a lawsuit against a legitimate and beneficial piece of legislation that corresponds with federal regulations and aids the feds and the American people in conquering illegal immigration?
Maybe he had time for the lawsuit on his vacation.
I have the highest respect for the highest office in America. I do not have respect for anyone who refuses to respect that office. B. Hussein, as I am going to start calling him, is questionably legally (he is possibly an illegal immigrant himself) and constitutionally (socialism, murder, communism, lying [he hasn't raped anyone yet, but we can still impeach him]) the President of these United States. He is not the ultimate authority; the Constitution is. And as a Christian and a minor, I will respect authority.
But I'm sure B. Hussein will find a loophole in the Constitution (presumably one he makes himself as he shreds it) that will allow him to continue his undeserved tenure as President of the United States of America.
When the Democrats want to find a loophole, there tends to be one.
When Republicans are being unconstitutionally prohibited from enforcing immigration laws that will help keep our country safe, alas! No loopholes are to be found.
For example, the Democrats found that there is no provision in the healthcare bill, or, gasp, the almighty executive order, that would prohibit federal funding of abortion in high-risk insurance pools.
The high-risk program, called the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, was meant to help those denied coverage over pre-existing conditions until the broader provisions of the law go into effect in 2014. The law set aside $5 billion in federal subsidies for the program, which is supposed to be either administered by the state or the Health and Human Services Department.
Of course, abortion in these cases would be prohibited unless the life of the mother was in danger, or in the case of rape or incest. Which leaves room for the "health" of the mother, or if the baby has an even conceivable possibility of minor deformities. Which is code for "we cover abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever." You are either for or against abortion. If you're for it at all, you're for it. At all is a modifier, but the meaning is the same.
It doesn't matter what you tell the public. The executive order cannot trump a law. The insistence that you don't cover abortion except in certain cases is not true. YOU STILL COVER ABORTION. Innocent babies still die, no matter how you label it. If I was getting aborted, I wouldn't care if my abortion was termed "covered" or not. The outcome is still the same. And if you support any abortion at all, any abortion at all is supported.
Now for the Republicans' issue. Instead of cracking down on immigration to keep our country safe, the Democrats are engaging in petty squabble over perfectly legitimate legislation. "Well, I have a lot of illegal immigrants on hand right now who can tell you just how illegitimate this law seems to them, how it's impacting their lives and families, how it's making living in America harder for them, illegal immigrants who could tell you just how unfair this monstrosity of a law this really is. Oh, what's that? The immigrants don't speak English? Can we get a translator up here? Ah, yes, thank you. Now, according to our translator, this illegal immigrant thinks that it's not fair that he can't get a job, according to Arizona's law, just because he illegally moved his family here and is now mooching off the taxpayers. He says he applauds Judge Bolton's decision to let him get a job and protect him from racial profiling by invasive officers." Well, then. (Just in case it's not too clear, that's a make-believe scenario.)
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked some of the toughest provisions in the Arizona illegal immigration law, putting on hold the state's attempt to have local police enforce federal immigration policy.
Though the rest of the law is still set to go into effect Thursday, the partial injunction on SB 1070 means Arizona, for the time being, will not be able to require police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.
Well, it only makes sense to block the toughest parts of a law whose aim is to crack down on illegal immigration, right?
And of course they should be able to get a job. I mean, they're just law-abiding citizens like the rest of us. (Except they don't pay taxes, they aren't citizens, and they broke the law by setting foot in this country. But other than that, yeah, I'm totally happy to remain unemployed for the sake of a drug-smuggling, pot-smoking vagrant who has no intention of respecting the American dream other than to steal it. It's all good.)
There is no reason to oppose any part of this law other than nothing more than a blatant contempt for the American way of life. Borders are there for a reason. Once they become meaningless, once our very identities as Americans become meaningless because anyone can be an American easily (and untaxedly), there will be no more America. At least then Obama can be our President legally.
Get this: the Mexican government applauds the decision (imagine that). Kind of like when Fidel Castro praised Barack Hussein Obama. Wonder what our old buddy Fidel thinks of this? Or is he already on the White House staff?
Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa told reporters that the injunction was a "first step in the right direction."
Yeah, no. It's a step over the line (and the border).
"The court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money," the ruling said. "Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws."
Of course, unless you take "disregarding" to mean "disregarding". If the court "by no means" disregards Arizona's interests in controlling the immigration problem, why are they not allowing Arizona to control the immigration problem?
And if Arizona's interests are consistent with those of the federal government, what's the problem? It is, actually, in the public interest to enforce "preempted laws". The feds are too busy bailing out Wall Street and need a bit of help. And who better to help them than the BORDER STATE with the biggest immigration problem? If they won't let Arizona help, won't let them enforce the laws, who do they expect to get it done? Alaska? How many illegal immigrants from Mexico do you think cross into Alaska every year? I've got a pretty good guess. Maybe Michigan or Wisconsin, North Dakota, Montana, Washington or Oregon? How about Maine? I think they'd do a GREAT job addressing the illegal immigrant problem. I mean, they're in such a prime position to deal with drug traffickers and smugglers from Mexico, don't you think? Hey, let's ask Canada to help!
Or maybe we could let a state pass an effective law to help solve their immigration problem. If Arizona's law isn't what the feds and the courts are looking for, do they have a better plan? Maybe they could make it illegal for a police station to have more than two Latinos in custody the way they do (or at least did) with young Arab men on the airlines (pre-9/11 and possibly post-9/11). That seemed to work well!
If the Arizona law is preempted by federal law, then there shouldn't be a problem. It should be at most helpful, at the least harmless. Correction: it IS at most helpful, at the least harmless. To say there's "nothing wrong" with it is an understatement. It's what the feds should have been doing all along. The federal program should encourage the passage of laws like this if it's immigration they really care about.
Wait a minute. They do care about immigration. Or, rather, immigrants. They think they should get jobs, raise families, get healthcare--all without paying taxes (because only law-abiding citizens do stuff like that). In some ways, the illegal immigrant is more protected, revered, and benefited than the U.S. citizen. If that doesn't scare you... you must be a Democrat.
"This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens," said Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona. I hate to break it to you, Jan, but there's no such thing as a "citizen" anymore.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio plans his 17th crime and immigration sweep. He planned to hold the sweep regardless of the ruling.
Arpaio, known for his tough stance against illegal immigration, plans to send out about 200 deputies and volunteers who will be looking for traffic violators, people wanted on criminal warrants and others. He has used that tactic before to arrest dozens of people, many of them illegal immigrants.
"We don't wait. We just do it," he said. "If there's a new law out, we're going to enforce it."
Great idea. I just hope he doesn't get a lawsuit filed against him by the President of the United Stataes.
Honestly, I cannot comprehend this. First of all, the Arizona law is perfectly legit, and that's an understatement. It's constitutional, it follows federal regulations, and has great potential to impact the illegal immigration situtation in America in a very positive way.
Second, the President should not file a lawsuit against an individual state for an individual state law. It is just wrong. It's communism, that's what it is.
Third and finally, doesn't Obama have better things to do? Like, I don't know, murder innocent babies, pass socialist reform bills, take over Wall Street, bow to foreign royalty, have lunch with Bill Ayers... that kind of thing? Does he really have time to file a lawsuit against a legitimate and beneficial piece of legislation that corresponds with federal regulations and aids the feds and the American people in conquering illegal immigration?
Maybe he had time for the lawsuit on his vacation.
I have the highest respect for the highest office in America. I do not have respect for anyone who refuses to respect that office. B. Hussein, as I am going to start calling him, is questionably legally (he is possibly an illegal immigrant himself) and constitutionally (socialism, murder, communism, lying [he hasn't raped anyone yet, but we can still impeach him]) the President of these United States. He is not the ultimate authority; the Constitution is. And as a Christian and a minor, I will respect authority.
But I'm sure B. Hussein will find a loophole in the Constitution (presumably one he makes himself as he shreds it) that will allow him to continue his undeserved tenure as President of the United States of America.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Such Improper, Innappropriate Opinions Will Be Dealt With Accordingly
Since when do you have to change your beliefs to pass a class? Since never. In fact, Jennifer Keeton, 24, pursuing a degree in school counseling at Augusta State University, has been informed that unless she changes her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct," she will not even be given the opportunity to fail. She will be expelled.
So, what, anyone who wants a job has to be a liberal now? That doesn't make sense at all. Liberals don't get jobs.
And who the heck would want a liberal counseling their kids? I think someone who views homosexuality and transgender issues from a conservative Christian vantage point can provide the best counseling of all to these types of people, if that's what's worrying everyone. What's going to help a kid more, giving them an alternative to the tough lifestyle they've CHOSEN, or saying, "you poor, misunderstood soul"? Counselors are supposed to help people solve problems and feel better, not deepen their senses of conviction that they're helpless victims of an unalterable fact.
She has been asked to take part in a "remediation plan." Oh, right. What are they going to do, strap her to a chair in a murky basement and brainwash her with a hair dryer? Or will they sit her down and address her problematic belief system? Or they could just use duct tape.
Or, or, maybe they could let an American student with a dream have her own opinion and not expel her for it. Any takers? Yeah...
It's not as if she's a hater. Most conservatives I know have no hatred toward the PEOPLE, just the lifestyle. The only haters here are the ones vowing to expel a student for her opinions.
Homosexuality is a choice, a behavior, as is altering yourself. You can choose. You can always choose.
Unless you're talking about your beliefs, in which case you don't have a choice.
So, what, anyone who wants a job has to be a liberal now? That doesn't make sense at all. Liberals don't get jobs.
And who the heck would want a liberal counseling their kids? I think someone who views homosexuality and transgender issues from a conservative Christian vantage point can provide the best counseling of all to these types of people, if that's what's worrying everyone. What's going to help a kid more, giving them an alternative to the tough lifestyle they've CHOSEN, or saying, "you poor, misunderstood soul"? Counselors are supposed to help people solve problems and feel better, not deepen their senses of conviction that they're helpless victims of an unalterable fact.
She has been asked to take part in a "remediation plan." Oh, right. What are they going to do, strap her to a chair in a murky basement and brainwash her with a hair dryer? Or will they sit her down and address her problematic belief system? Or they could just use duct tape.
Or, or, maybe they could let an American student with a dream have her own opinion and not expel her for it. Any takers? Yeah...
It's not as if she's a hater. Most conservatives I know have no hatred toward the PEOPLE, just the lifestyle. The only haters here are the ones vowing to expel a student for her opinions.
Homosexuality is a choice, a behavior, as is altering yourself. You can choose. You can always choose.
Unless you're talking about your beliefs, in which case you don't have a choice.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
The deficit for this year is going to be 1.47 TRILLION DOLLARS.
(I didn't title this post because no term can grasp the atrocity of our government right now. But I might seem "unprofessional" if I don't follow general writing guidelines in an article about the government... yeah, somehow I don't think unprofessionalism is MY problem. So I won't title this. [Actually, I forgot the title. **wink**])
That's over one fourth of Bush's accumulated debt over EIGHT YEARS. Let's just hope we aren't stupid enough to give this idiot that long.
The government borrows 41% of the money it spends (41 cents/dollar). That's crazy. We owe almost half of everything we spend to... well, I'm guessing mostly China. You know what would be a good idea? All the other nations of the world should form a borrowing pool for the United States government. They could pool their money and we could just draw from that pool whenever. And pay them back sometime, possibly.
Or, or, here's an idea: How about the government learns how to run a country? Yeah, I like that plan better.
The Office of Management and Budget forecasts still-high unemployment rates by the time the next election comes around.
And the best part is, we're actually doing better than expected this year. However, next year, if we spend the projected $1.42 trillion, it'll be about $150 billion more than expected.
Of course, nowadays that's a pretty inconsequential number.
OMB Director Peter Orszag stated that the numbers represent a "fiscal situation that requires attention."
Is he just now figuring that out?
Well, kudos.
That's "better than expected."
You know, Obama kind of ran on "hope" and "change." Well, the economy's forecast looks not-so-hopeful. And I guess we were all misguided in the notion that Obama's "change" was a positive thing. I guess he forgot to specify. Must have slipped his mind.
Meanwhile, he's blowing ours.
(I didn't title this post because no term can grasp the atrocity of our government right now. But I might seem "unprofessional" if I don't follow general writing guidelines in an article about the government... yeah, somehow I don't think unprofessionalism is MY problem. So I won't title this. [Actually, I forgot the title. **wink**])
That's over one fourth of Bush's accumulated debt over EIGHT YEARS. Let's just hope we aren't stupid enough to give this idiot that long.
The government borrows 41% of the money it spends (41 cents/dollar). That's crazy. We owe almost half of everything we spend to... well, I'm guessing mostly China. You know what would be a good idea? All the other nations of the world should form a borrowing pool for the United States government. They could pool their money and we could just draw from that pool whenever. And pay them back sometime, possibly.
Or, or, here's an idea: How about the government learns how to run a country? Yeah, I like that plan better.
The Office of Management and Budget forecasts still-high unemployment rates by the time the next election comes around.
And the best part is, we're actually doing better than expected this year. However, next year, if we spend the projected $1.42 trillion, it'll be about $150 billion more than expected.
Of course, nowadays that's a pretty inconsequential number.
OMB Director Peter Orszag stated that the numbers represent a "fiscal situation that requires attention."
Is he just now figuring that out?
Well, kudos.
That's "better than expected."
You know, Obama kind of ran on "hope" and "change." Well, the economy's forecast looks not-so-hopeful. And I guess we were all misguided in the notion that Obama's "change" was a positive thing. I guess he forgot to specify. Must have slipped his mind.
Meanwhile, he's blowing ours.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
The Free[k] Market: The Countdown Begins/Ends
Obama today signed into law an enormaous financial overhaul that officially turned us socialist. The countdown from when we were unofficially socialist (the day the stimulus passed, the day Obama was elected... there is dispute over the actual start of the countdown) to when we officially, legally became socialist has ended.
For all future generations: America became socialist on Wednesday, July 21, 2010. Most people will never know, though, because the media will never tel them and liberals will never consent to cutting down a bunch of trees to make new history books.
As Obama signed this bill into law, he pledged, "There will be no more tax-funded bailouts -- period."
The countdown begins today as to how long it takes for him to break that promise (and then, of course, tell us how he's "not REALLY breaking the promise, because...").
The government's "consumer protection" program enables them to do what they please with private business under the guise of "helping the consumer." In addition, the government is going to "help consumers make better decisions." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what "help" means in this case.
The government also has new powers to break up any companies that threaten the economy. According to them.
Basically, the government has almost total control over the free market transforming it into "the freak market." Named for those who reign over it.
Somehow I don't consider it a privelege that I was able to witness America's regressional transformation into socialism.
And once Obama and the Democrats do away with term limits, I'll be able to witness our switch to communism, too.
Every time Obama pulls a stunt like this, I get caught in wishful thinking: It can't possibly get worse.
It does.
So I will never underestimate a Democrat again.
But hey! If we take back Congress, we can at least hinder them long enough to find a President.
Things are getting out of control without one.
For all future generations: America became socialist on Wednesday, July 21, 2010. Most people will never know, though, because the media will never tel them and liberals will never consent to cutting down a bunch of trees to make new history books.
As Obama signed this bill into law, he pledged, "There will be no more tax-funded bailouts -- period."
The countdown begins today as to how long it takes for him to break that promise (and then, of course, tell us how he's "not REALLY breaking the promise, because...").
The government's "consumer protection" program enables them to do what they please with private business under the guise of "helping the consumer." In addition, the government is going to "help consumers make better decisions." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what "help" means in this case.
The government also has new powers to break up any companies that threaten the economy. According to them.
Basically, the government has almost total control over the free market transforming it into "the freak market." Named for those who reign over it.
Somehow I don't consider it a privelege that I was able to witness America's regressional transformation into socialism.
And once Obama and the Democrats do away with term limits, I'll be able to witness our switch to communism, too.
Every time Obama pulls a stunt like this, I get caught in wishful thinking: It can't possibly get worse.
It does.
So I will never underestimate a Democrat again.
But hey! If we take back Congress, we can at least hinder them long enough to find a President.
Things are getting out of control without one.
The Authority Problem
My mom says I need to respect Obama because he's in authority, no matter how much of an idiot he is. And for a while I couldn't make it past that argument. But I have solved the Authority Problem. I now have the answer for the eager masses of teens who willingly immerse themselves in the political world. Um.
Anyway, I realized that the Founders NEVER referred to the President as the ultimate law or authority of the land. They always referred to the CONSTITUTION as such. I don't have to respect Obama because 1) he's not the authority and 2) he doesn't respect authority. It's actually my duty as a citizen, and my duty, in respect to the Constitution (the authority) to do everything I can to hinder, impede, and otherwise halt the Obama Train of Opressive Recession.
So I have every right (under the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution [which is the authority]) to use my freedom of speech to call Obama a liar, a terrorist, an illegal immigrant, a tyrant, and whatever I please.
That's my right, to say something about it.
It's my duty to do something about it.
To solve America's little authority problem.
Anyway, I realized that the Founders NEVER referred to the President as the ultimate law or authority of the land. They always referred to the CONSTITUTION as such. I don't have to respect Obama because 1) he's not the authority and 2) he doesn't respect authority. It's actually my duty as a citizen, and my duty, in respect to the Constitution (the authority) to do everything I can to hinder, impede, and otherwise halt the Obama Train of Opressive Recession.
So I have every right (under the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution [which is the authority]) to use my freedom of speech to call Obama a liar, a terrorist, an illegal immigrant, a tyrant, and whatever I please.
That's my right, to say something about it.
It's my duty to do something about it.
To solve America's little authority problem.
Monday, July 19, 2010
"The Election's Over, You Partisan Bigot!" Says Obama In Defense Of Unemployment Benefit Extension
Ugh!! I was supposed to post this a couple days ago but my brother claimed the computer. Anyway, it's still relevant because I'm sure Obama will do it again.
It's amazing to me (not really) that whenever Obama wants his way, he always comes out and accuses Republicans of being "partisan". Republicans are just doing what they know is right. By insisting that they only do what they do because they are "partisan", Obama actually becomes the "partisan in the situation. But you already knew that.
For example, in this latest round of political warfare, Obama is accusing Republicans of harboring the "misguided notion" that unemployment benefits discourage people from seeking employment. This is not the main reason Republicans oppose extending unemployment benefits, but it is a good reason. After all, why get a job when you can just live on unemployment benefits? (On that note, a quick question: Are we giving unemployment benefits to the illegal immigrants we fire in the silent raids? Just curious.) The notion is not misguided. If you get benefits for being unemployed, why stop?
Of course, this is not the case for all people who are out of work. Some are, indeed, as Obama put it, "not looking for a handout. They desperately want to work." (Which makes me wonder why Obama wants to help them at all; I thought he only liked helping people who WERE looking for handouts.) Although their "misguided notion" is often true, it is also, often, not true. Therefore it is not their principal argument.
In fact, Republicans agree to support the extension as long as it doesn't contribute to the national deficit. Seems fair enough, right? Even if the unemployed get their benefits, it doesn't help the economy to deepen the deficit. Obama insists that it isn't right to give tax cuts to the rich and deny benefits to the unemployed. Well, as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), cutting taxes doesn't put us in debt. And Republicans WILL extend unemployment benefits if they don't put is further in debt, either.
The phrase "fiscally responsible" cancels out anything else Boehner may have said because that's not how Obama rolls. Indeed, the American people are asking, "Where are the jobs?" and Obama is responding, "I don't know. The Republicans don't want to give you guys your benefits unless it's 'fiscally responsible'. Pshaw. Like, what does that even mean? So, yeah, blame them."
Mr. President, I'm sure Republicans would explain the concept of fiscal responsibility if you asked them. They're rather nice folks. But noooo. Who's partisan now?
The President proceeded to--you guessed it--blame Bush. "Well, he drove up the deficit, too!! And now you suddenly care!" Actually, Mr. President, most Republicans ARE ticked at Bush for driving up the deficit. It's just that they forgot about that in the wake of the disaster you wrought. You outspent Bush in ONE BILL. So don't even go pointing fingers. You have a trillion+ deficit already compared to Bush's 700 billion in 8 years. If I were you I would just quit while I have that luxury.
"There are times when you put elections aside. This is one of those times," Obama said. Um, there's no election going on, hon. Besides, I agree. Please stop campaigning. Are you trying to rub it in our faces that you won? Yes, we know you're the President. Acting like it would be nice. And if you're going to get stuck in an election, at least get stuck in your own. Bush was elected, like, six years ago. Get over yourself.
You see, Obama is THE ONLY ONE who mentioned elections. He's constantly mentioning them. This is one instance, and another was in the "bipartisan" healthcare summit a while back. John McCain was making an argument or point or whatever, and Obama just sat there with his chin in his hand staring into space. Have you ever seen a President do that on the job, let alone when someone's TALKING to him? The only time he changed expression was to roll his eyes, and when McCain finished, he said, "You know, the election's over, John."
No, duh. So why did you have to bring it up? McCain wasn't talking about it. In fact, I think, and I know this sounds crazy, but I think he was talking about healthcare reform. So why bring up the election...? It's almost like he was changing the subject and trying to make McCain look stupid...
Anyway, whenever Obama wants his way, he'll accuse you of being partisan or being stuck in an election. So if that starts happening (oh, wait, it has been happening for a while now), that's a little indicator that he's pushing a tyrannical agenda down your throat.
In case you don't pick up on that in time.
It's amazing to me (not really) that whenever Obama wants his way, he always comes out and accuses Republicans of being "partisan". Republicans are just doing what they know is right. By insisting that they only do what they do because they are "partisan", Obama actually becomes the "partisan in the situation. But you already knew that.
For example, in this latest round of political warfare, Obama is accusing Republicans of harboring the "misguided notion" that unemployment benefits discourage people from seeking employment. This is not the main reason Republicans oppose extending unemployment benefits, but it is a good reason. After all, why get a job when you can just live on unemployment benefits? (On that note, a quick question: Are we giving unemployment benefits to the illegal immigrants we fire in the silent raids? Just curious.) The notion is not misguided. If you get benefits for being unemployed, why stop?
Of course, this is not the case for all people who are out of work. Some are, indeed, as Obama put it, "not looking for a handout. They desperately want to work." (Which makes me wonder why Obama wants to help them at all; I thought he only liked helping people who WERE looking for handouts.) Although their "misguided notion" is often true, it is also, often, not true. Therefore it is not their principal argument.
In fact, Republicans agree to support the extension as long as it doesn't contribute to the national deficit. Seems fair enough, right? Even if the unemployed get their benefits, it doesn't help the economy to deepen the deficit. Obama insists that it isn't right to give tax cuts to the rich and deny benefits to the unemployed. Well, as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), cutting taxes doesn't put us in debt. And Republicans WILL extend unemployment benefits if they don't put is further in debt, either.
"The president knows that Republicans support extending unemployment insurance, and doing it in a fiscally responsible way by cutting spending elsewhere in the $3 trillion federal budget," House Republican Leader John Boehner said in a written statement. "The American people are asking 'where are the jobs?' and President Obama continues to offer only disingenuous attacks, not answers." --FOXNews.com
The phrase "fiscally responsible" cancels out anything else Boehner may have said because that's not how Obama rolls. Indeed, the American people are asking, "Where are the jobs?" and Obama is responding, "I don't know. The Republicans don't want to give you guys your benefits unless it's 'fiscally responsible'. Pshaw. Like, what does that even mean? So, yeah, blame them."
Mr. President, I'm sure Republicans would explain the concept of fiscal responsibility if you asked them. They're rather nice folks. But noooo. Who's partisan now?
The President proceeded to--you guessed it--blame Bush. "Well, he drove up the deficit, too!! And now you suddenly care!" Actually, Mr. President, most Republicans ARE ticked at Bush for driving up the deficit. It's just that they forgot about that in the wake of the disaster you wrought. You outspent Bush in ONE BILL. So don't even go pointing fingers. You have a trillion+ deficit already compared to Bush's 700 billion in 8 years. If I were you I would just quit while I have that luxury.
"There are times when you put elections aside. This is one of those times," Obama said. Um, there's no election going on, hon. Besides, I agree. Please stop campaigning. Are you trying to rub it in our faces that you won? Yes, we know you're the President. Acting like it would be nice. And if you're going to get stuck in an election, at least get stuck in your own. Bush was elected, like, six years ago. Get over yourself.
You see, Obama is THE ONLY ONE who mentioned elections. He's constantly mentioning them. This is one instance, and another was in the "bipartisan" healthcare summit a while back. John McCain was making an argument or point or whatever, and Obama just sat there with his chin in his hand staring into space. Have you ever seen a President do that on the job, let alone when someone's TALKING to him? The only time he changed expression was to roll his eyes, and when McCain finished, he said, "You know, the election's over, John."
No, duh. So why did you have to bring it up? McCain wasn't talking about it. In fact, I think, and I know this sounds crazy, but I think he was talking about healthcare reform. So why bring up the election...? It's almost like he was changing the subject and trying to make McCain look stupid...
Anyway, whenever Obama wants his way, he'll accuse you of being partisan or being stuck in an election. So if that starts happening (oh, wait, it has been happening for a while now), that's a little indicator that he's pushing a tyrannical agenda down your throat.
In case you don't pick up on that in time.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
If America Is As Fat As Their Wallets, We Aren't Healthy
From FOXNews.com --
I think this speaks for itself, but in case you didn't get it, not only does the government now have a right to know the combined volume of your eyelashes, what tea you like to drink, and how many times you've stepped in a mud puddle, they now insist on knowing how fat you are for your own good.
And the Obama's personal cook is now a senior White House official. Again, this speaks for itself (for more info, see "Czars, Czars, Czars..." from yesterday).
I have clung to a sliver of hope for a while now, but now I say with conviction: we are SCREWED if we don't do something, fast.
P.S. I would rather be fat than have their wallets be.
As the Obama administration sets its sights on overweight Americans, demanding obesity ratings for all citizens by 2014, the White House has promoted the Obamas' personal cook to a senior advisory position.
Sam Kass, the 20-something Chicago chef, is now the White House "Food Initiative Coordinator," Kass' title reportedly was upgraded last month from food initiative coordinator to senior policy adviser for health food initiatives. His duties have not changed.
The change comes as the Health and Human Services announced this week that under the stimulus law, health care providers must establish "meaningful use" of electronic health records to qualify for federal subsidies or risk seeing their Medicare and Medicaid payments slashed. The electronic health records must include Americans' body mass index, or BMI, height and weight.
Critics say the BMI is unreliable and the ratings will lead to more government intrusion.
Supporters say the ratings will serve as motivation for weight loss.
"The fact we're now tracking BMIs', I think knowledge is power for us," nutrition expert Mitzi Dulan told Fox News."There are a lot of people that don't know their BMI and it's denial.
Dulan noted that a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that $147 billion is spent annually on obesity-related costs, or 10 percent of medical costs.
I think this speaks for itself, but in case you didn't get it, not only does the government now have a right to know the combined volume of your eyelashes, what tea you like to drink, and how many times you've stepped in a mud puddle, they now insist on knowing how fat you are for your own good.
And the Obama's personal cook is now a senior White House official. Again, this speaks for itself (for more info, see "Czars, Czars, Czars..." from yesterday).
I have clung to a sliver of hope for a while now, but now I say with conviction: we are SCREWED if we don't do something, fast.
P.S. I would rather be fat than have their wallets be.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Czars, Czars, Czars (I Would Continue, But My Tongue's Twisted)
From WorldNetDaily--
Okay, Obama, I know you really, really love your czars, but this is ridiculous! I mean, really? Why do we even need half of these czars? And a HEALTH FOOD CZAR? Really? What's next, a white-bunny-with-a-black-patch-of-fur-on-its-left-eye czar? Seriously!
And Michelle Obama doesn't really care about national security any more than her hubby does. Terrorists are treated better than some American citizens while they're at Gitmo, and all the Obamas can do is preach to the cause of making us less fat? Just tax pop and get it over with already! Oh, wait, YOU DID.
Finally, let me just comment on a few of Obama's czars:
Ron Bloom, car czar: My favorite (this guy is the carz czar!)
Jeffrey Zients, government performance czar: I feel bad for this guy
Cameron Davis, Great Lakes czar: This is one that actually affects me, so I have to comment on him
Van Jones, green jobs czar: Is this that psycho "spread the wealth" guy? Is wealth-spreading (aka government office) a green job? Come to think of it, Mr. Green Jobs Czar, is being a czar a green job? Huh? Huh?
Daniel Fried, Guantanamo closure czar: Well, he sure did a bang-up job
Vivek Kundra, information czar: All "information" except that with the terms "Muslim," "radical," "Islamic extremist(s)," "9/11," and the number nineteen
Dennis Blair, intelligence czar: Dude, this guy works for the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. He's an oxymoron (Obama's intelligence czar... yeah, no)
George Mitchell, Mideast peace czar: This guy has obviously been working hard, but not harder than Obama, seeing as how the Mideast peace czar hasn't actually bowed to anyone as of yet
Earl Devaney, stimulus accountability czar: And I thought the "government performance czar" had it bad
John Brennan, terrorism czar: Obviously either an idiot (thus listened to) or not an idiot (and thus not listened to)
Sam Kass, health food czar: the newest and, as yet, most pointless addition to the Kzarz Klub
You've seen the reports about Van Jones, President Obama's onetime "green jobs czar," and Cass Sunstein, his equally volatile "regulatory czar," and Fox News show host Glenn Beck has put together a list of dozens of such appointees.
Now here's the newest White House promotion: "Health food czar" Sam Kass.
"In a comical move even for a czar-happy president who has rewarded dozens of cronies with distinguished titles, the White House has named the Obamas' personal Chicago cook as 'Senior Policy Adviser for Healthy Food Initiatives,'" reports the Washington government watchdog Judicial Watch.
"It's no joke, even though it sounds like a bad one. The Chicago chef's rapid ascension ... has been kept under the radar for the last month," Judicial Watch said.
"Sam Kass went from being a 20-something, Windy City gourmet cook – privately paid by the Obamas to feed them – to big-time White House adviser in a matter of months," the report said.
But it makes sense, the report said, since Michelle Obama has claimed that childhood obesity is a threat to "national security."
According to an earlier CNSNews.com report, Michelle Obama confirmed – in talking about her White House campaign against obesity – that the condition "impacts national security" because it is a "disqualifier for military service."
Judicial Watch said the situation is so dire, President Obama has been convinced to spend $400 million a year on "healthy foods" in low-income neighborhoods as well as revise – at a cost of $10 billion – a federal plan to provide food to poor children in school.
Such an assembly of programs "no doubt requires a trusted senior policy adviser – like Kass – who is an expert in healthy cuisine," Judicial Watch said.
"Makes you wonder what Kass … has been putting in the Obamas' food all these years," the report said...
According to Beck's compilation, the list of czars includes:
Richard Holbrooke, Afghanistan czar
Jeffrey Crowley, AIDS czar
Ed Montgomery, auto recovery czar
Alan Bersin, border czar
David J. Hayes, California water czar
Ron Bloom, car czar
Dennis Ross, central region czar
Todd Stern, climate czar
Lynn Rosenthal, domestic violence czar
Gil Kerlikowske, drug czar
Paul Volcker, economic czar
Carol Browner, energy and environment czar
Joshua DuBois, faith-based czar
Jeffrey Zients, government performance czar
Cameron Davis, Great Lakes czar
Van Jones, green jobs czar
Daniel Fried, Guantanamo closure czar
Nancy-Ann DeParle, health czar
Vivek Kundra, information czar
Dennis Blair, intelligence czar
George Mitchell, Mideast peace czar
Kenneth R. Feinberg, pay czar
Cass Sunstein, regulatory czar
John Holdren, science czar
Earl Devaney, stimulus accountability czar
J. Scott Gration, Sudan czar
Herb Allison, TARP czar
Aneesh Chopra, technology czar
John Brennan, terrorism czar
Adolfa Carrion Jr., urban affairs czar
Ashton Carter, weapons czar
Gary Samore, WMD policy czar
Okay, Obama, I know you really, really love your czars, but this is ridiculous! I mean, really? Why do we even need half of these czars? And a HEALTH FOOD CZAR? Really? What's next, a white-bunny-with-a-black-patch-of-fur-on-its-left-eye czar? Seriously!
And Michelle Obama doesn't really care about national security any more than her hubby does. Terrorists are treated better than some American citizens while they're at Gitmo, and all the Obamas can do is preach to the cause of making us less fat? Just tax pop and get it over with already! Oh, wait, YOU DID.
Finally, let me just comment on a few of Obama's czars:
Ron Bloom, car czar: My favorite (this guy is the carz czar!)
Jeffrey Zients, government performance czar: I feel bad for this guy
Cameron Davis, Great Lakes czar: This is one that actually affects me, so I have to comment on him
Van Jones, green jobs czar: Is this that psycho "spread the wealth" guy? Is wealth-spreading (aka government office) a green job? Come to think of it, Mr. Green Jobs Czar, is being a czar a green job? Huh? Huh?
Daniel Fried, Guantanamo closure czar: Well, he sure did a bang-up job
Vivek Kundra, information czar: All "information" except that with the terms "Muslim," "radical," "Islamic extremist(s)," "9/11," and the number nineteen
Dennis Blair, intelligence czar: Dude, this guy works for the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. He's an oxymoron (Obama's intelligence czar... yeah, no)
George Mitchell, Mideast peace czar: This guy has obviously been working hard, but not harder than Obama, seeing as how the Mideast peace czar hasn't actually bowed to anyone as of yet
Earl Devaney, stimulus accountability czar: And I thought the "government performance czar" had it bad
John Brennan, terrorism czar: Obviously either an idiot (thus listened to) or not an idiot (and thus not listened to)
Sam Kass, health food czar: the newest and, as yet, most pointless addition to the Kzarz Klub
AZ Governor Is Apparently Not A "Border Governer"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/15/new-mexico-host-border-governors-meeting/
The annual border governors' conference has been moved from Arizona to New Mexico because of all the controversy over the new immigration law. An excerpt from the above article:
I'm not sure if the Arizona governor moved it herself or if the other governors did, but either way, it's been moved and Brewer isn't going to attend it:
I'm confused by this article, actually, but it sounds like Brewer is going to hold her own conference? I don't even know.
Here is what I do know: If anyone deserves to hold the BORDER GOVERNORS' Conference, it's Arizona.
The annual border governors' conference has been moved from Arizona to New Mexico because of all the controversy over the new immigration law. An excerpt from the above article:
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, called off the meeting in Phoenix after the Mexican governors planned to boycott it because of Arizona's new immigration
law.
The Mexican governors said in a June letter that Arizona's law
violated civil rights and they suggested moving the conference to another state.
I'm not sure if the Arizona governor moved it herself or if the other governors did, but either way, it's been moved and Brewer isn't going to attend it:
Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said the Arizona governor had no plans to attend the meeting in Santa Fe, "but would certainly welcome the Mexican and U.S. governors to attend the actual Border Governors Conference in Arizona as they had all previously committed."
I'm confused by this article, actually, but it sounds like Brewer is going to hold her own conference? I don't even know.
Here is what I do know: If anyone deserves to hold the BORDER GOVERNORS' Conference, it's Arizona.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Valiant, Persevering Government Resolves Not To Give Up Until Their Mad Powergrabs Meet Success
I could just post the link to each of these articles instead of copying and pasting them, but it's easier to comment and for readers to read my comments if the article is right there. All are from FOXNews.com. My comments are in bold.
"WE'RE SPENDING YOUR MONEY WELL" CLAIM SIGNS FUNDED BY YOU
Some local officials are spending freely to post street signs that let people know the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- better known as the stimulus bill -- has funded a highway project in local neighborhoods, an expense that has Republicans blistering over why taxpayer money is being used to promote how taxpayer money is being used.
Exactly.
State governments are estimated to be using millions of dollars to put up the signs that say what a great job they are doing spending money. Some examples:
-- In Washington, D.C., the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority spent $10,000 for a single 10-by-11-foot sign displayed at a highway project, advertising that the $15 million in stimulus funds the District received were provided by the stimulus.
-- Illinois spent about $650,000 during the last 14 months for 950 signs to be placed on 850 highway projects, Department of Transportation spokesman Josh Kauffman told FoxNews.com.
-- Pennsylvania spent $157,477 of the $1 billion in stimulus funds it received on 70 signs for 37 projects, Department of Transportation press officer Alison Wenger told FoxNews.com. The average cost of each sign was $2,250.
-- Tennessee bought 324 signs for $12,931, ABC News reported.
I must say, that is truly sad. As if we need to know how we're being helped; as if the Democrats aren't proclaiming it every day! Do they think we're idiots? (Then again, we elected them.)
But some states, including Florida, Vermont, Arizona and Virginia, aren't following neighboring states' signs.
"We decided that we were going to take all the money that we got from our stimulus projects and put it into the road," said Jeff Caldwell, chief of communications for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Last year, the Federal Highway Administration issued guidance to states on the layout and color of signs.
The statement issued shortly after the $787 billion stimulus bill passed noted that "President Obama made the commitment that all projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) will bear a recovery emblem to make it easier for Americans to see which projects are funded by the ARRA."
Really, who cares?
On Tuesday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he was pleased Republicans have noticed the nearly 11,000 road projects under way as a result of the stimulus.
"We have encouraged states to let people know how their tax money is being spent. Some post signs, some don't. I believe that as a matter of spending, those signs account for about 3 cents out of every hundred dollars that is spent on the recovery," he said.
How our money is being spent?!?!? If we really knew that, you'd be either out of office, out of the country, or both. Here are a few examples of how some of the stimulus funds were used: a study in sexual arousal in anesthetized female rats and creating a coordinated colonay of robotic bees. But you don't see signs for that.
California Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is probing into what was required of states and jurisdictions about sign construction.
And Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., introduced a resolution in the House that he summarized as saying, "We don't need to tell the American people with propaganda signs that we're spending their tax dollars wisely."
Schock said that not only is the signage an insult to people's intelligence to tell them that a road project is under way as they're driving through it, but it's a waste of stimulus funds and isn't doing anything to increase employment.
Don't be so sure about that: "The number of signs employed in the U.S. after ARRA passed has risen at exponential rates! The recession has ended! We're saved!"
But the House rejected the proposal.
"Taxpayers' dollars should not be used to advertise government programs and construct signs, but that obviously was rejected by the majority on the floor yesterday," Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., told Fox News on Wednesday.
"The American people don't want to see tax dollars used to promote the economic agenda of this administration. They want to see them used used toward implementing policies that will put Americans back to work," Pence said.
GAY IMMIGRANTS GET GREEN CARDS IF SPOUSE IS AMERICAN
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats are trying to broaden support for immigration reform by reaching out to the gay and lesbian community with a provision in immigration legislation that would allow gay and lesbian Americans to bring foreign partners home to the United States.
Under current law, American citizens and other legal permanent residents can get a green card or immigrant visa for a spouse or immediate family members living abroad. However, the same rights do not extend to same-sex couples living in the country.
During a news conference on Capitol Hill Thursday, Democratic Reps. Jerrold Nadler of New York, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Mike Honda of California, among others, urged Congress to pass the Uniting American Families Act as part of a comprehensive immigration reform package this year.
"Right now too many same-sex, binational couples face an impossible choice," said Gutierrez, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, "to live apart or to break the law to be with partners, their families and children."
“Government should never engage in purposeless, gratuitous cruelty and we should stop it," Nadler said.
Fox News Poll: Most Oppose Government Suit Over Arizona LawWith no support from the GOP, the comprehensive immigration bill introduced by Gutierrez last December has stalled in the House. Republicans say this legislation won't help.
"These are creative people who just have the wrong philosophy," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a member of the immigration subcommittee. "It's an alliance designed to grant amnesty."
"It tries to redefine traditional marriage. I can't support that," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told Fox News. "If they're looking to truly reach out to conservatives and Republicans and do something in a bipartisan way, this isn't it."
The legislation appears to be part of an effort to strengthen support on the left, rather than the right, by targeting a constituency that has yet to be heard from in the immigration debate -- the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered community.
"Last time around the pro-immigration side took us for granted. ... It is crucial to shore up the support of real genuine progressives who will pick up the phone and call their representatives," said Rachel Tiven of Immigration Equality, an organization that describes itself as one fighting for equal immigration rights for the LGBT community as well as HIV positive immigrants and their families.
Last month in Arizona, Phoenix' gay chamber of commerce urged national gay rights groups not to boycott the state over its impending immigration law that allows a crackdown by local police on illegals, saying the decision would hurt gay-friendly businesses. Proposed comprehensive immigration reform legislation in Congress is in part a reaction to criticism that the federal government has not done enough to resolve illegal immigration in the country.
Because this isn't discrimination at all! No, this is EQUAL OPPORTUNITY! We want illegals, gays, and gay illegals to feel comfortable in society. You know what? Gay unions are not marriages. Thus, they cannot bring back a spouse from a foreign country because they can't have spouses. I am sick of all this PC favoritism in the name of equal rights. Illegal immigrants are illegal, whether they're gay or not. I can't comment any more on this or I'll sound like a rage-crazed freak. It's just unbelievable...
GOVERNMENT TO FIX ALL YET AGAIN (only part of the article is here, as it was, well... quite lengthy)
Congress on Thursday passed the stiffest restrictions on banks and Wall Street since the Great Depression, clamping down on lending practices and expanding consumer protections to prevent a repeat of the 2008 meltdown that knocked the economy to its knees.
A year in the making and 22 months after the collapse of Lehman Brothers triggered a worldwide panic in credit and other markets, the bill cleared its final hurdle with a 60-39 Senate vote. It now goes to the White House for President Obama's signature, expected as early as Wednesday.
The law will give the government new powers to break up companies that threaten the economy, create a new agency to guard consumers in their financial transactions and shine a light into shadow financial markets that escaped the oversight of regulators.
Large, failing financial institutions would be liquidated and the costs assessed on their surviving peers. The Federal Reserve is getting new powers while falling under greater congressional scrutiny.
From storefront payday lenders to the biggest banking and investment houses on Wall Street, few players in the financial world are immune to the bill's reach. Consumer and investor transactions, whether simple debit card swipes or the most complex securities trades, face new safeguards or restrictions.
"I'm about to sign Wall Street reform into law, to protect consumers and lay the foundation for a stronger and safer financial system, one that is innovative, creative, competitive and far less prone to panic and collapse," Obama said.
"Unless your business model depends on cutting corners or bilking your customers, you have nothing to fear."
Republicans said the bill is a vast federal overreach that will drive financial-sector jobs overseas. Before the final vote was even cast, House Republican Leader John Boehner called for its repeal.
At an eye-glazing 390,000 words -- half the size of the King James Bible -- the legislation doesn't offer a quick remedy, however. Rather, it lays down prescriptions for regulators to act. In many cases, the real impact won't be felt for years.
One of the top regulators who will be charged with implementing the law, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, said the Senate vote represents a "far-reaching step toward preventing a replay of the recent financial crisis."
The Senate's final passage of the bill, two weeks after the House approved it, is a welcome achievement for a president and congressional Democrats, both increasingly unpopular with voters four months from midterm elections that threaten to put Republicans in charge of Congress. Only three Republicans voted for it -- Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown. Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who has said the bill is not tough enough, voted with most Republicans against it.
The law has been a priority for Obama, ranking just behind his health care overhaul enacted in March. In its final form, the package hews closely to the plan unwrapped a year ago by the White House and in some ways is even tougher. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs promptly cast the vote in political terms.
"This will be a vote that Democrats will talk about through November as a way of highlighting the choice that people will get to make in 2010," he said.
The political benefits, however, stand to be overshadowed by lingering high unemployment. And Republicans were betting that public antipathy toward big government and worries over jobs would trump their anger at Wall Street.
"We're going to be driving jobs and business overseas with this massive piece of legislation," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who worked with Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut on certain aspects of the bill, denounced it as a "legislative monster."
Whenever the government gets involved in something, it jacks it up. The free market is supposed to go up and down; it's what makes it free. It's not free if the government has its greedy, idiotic hand in it all the time. IT CANNOT FUNCTION if you don't let it. And not only is the market becoming enslaved, but so will we if we let this madness continue. The people and the businesses will work things out. The government needs to stay out or there will be consequences. No, that's not a threat. That's just the conviction of someone who observes history.
"WE'RE SPENDING YOUR MONEY WELL" CLAIM SIGNS FUNDED BY YOU
Some local officials are spending freely to post street signs that let people know the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- better known as the stimulus bill -- has funded a highway project in local neighborhoods, an expense that has Republicans blistering over why taxpayer money is being used to promote how taxpayer money is being used.
Exactly.
State governments are estimated to be using millions of dollars to put up the signs that say what a great job they are doing spending money. Some examples:
-- In Washington, D.C., the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority spent $10,000 for a single 10-by-11-foot sign displayed at a highway project, advertising that the $15 million in stimulus funds the District received were provided by the stimulus.
-- Illinois spent about $650,000 during the last 14 months for 950 signs to be placed on 850 highway projects, Department of Transportation spokesman Josh Kauffman told FoxNews.com.
-- Pennsylvania spent $157,477 of the $1 billion in stimulus funds it received on 70 signs for 37 projects, Department of Transportation press officer Alison Wenger told FoxNews.com. The average cost of each sign was $2,250.
-- Tennessee bought 324 signs for $12,931, ABC News reported.
I must say, that is truly sad. As if we need to know how we're being helped; as if the Democrats aren't proclaiming it every day! Do they think we're idiots? (Then again, we elected them.)
But some states, including Florida, Vermont, Arizona and Virginia, aren't following neighboring states' signs.
"We decided that we were going to take all the money that we got from our stimulus projects and put it into the road," said Jeff Caldwell, chief of communications for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Last year, the Federal Highway Administration issued guidance to states on the layout and color of signs.
The statement issued shortly after the $787 billion stimulus bill passed noted that "President Obama made the commitment that all projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) will bear a recovery emblem to make it easier for Americans to see which projects are funded by the ARRA."
Really, who cares?
On Tuesday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he was pleased Republicans have noticed the nearly 11,000 road projects under way as a result of the stimulus.
"We have encouraged states to let people know how their tax money is being spent. Some post signs, some don't. I believe that as a matter of spending, those signs account for about 3 cents out of every hundred dollars that is spent on the recovery," he said.
How our money is being spent?!?!? If we really knew that, you'd be either out of office, out of the country, or both. Here are a few examples of how some of the stimulus funds were used: a study in sexual arousal in anesthetized female rats and creating a coordinated colonay of robotic bees. But you don't see signs for that.
California Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is probing into what was required of states and jurisdictions about sign construction.
And Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., introduced a resolution in the House that he summarized as saying, "We don't need to tell the American people with propaganda signs that we're spending their tax dollars wisely."
Schock said that not only is the signage an insult to people's intelligence to tell them that a road project is under way as they're driving through it, but it's a waste of stimulus funds and isn't doing anything to increase employment.
Don't be so sure about that: "The number of signs employed in the U.S. after ARRA passed has risen at exponential rates! The recession has ended! We're saved!"
But the House rejected the proposal.
"Taxpayers' dollars should not be used to advertise government programs and construct signs, but that obviously was rejected by the majority on the floor yesterday," Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., told Fox News on Wednesday.
"The American people don't want to see tax dollars used to promote the economic agenda of this administration. They want to see them used used toward implementing policies that will put Americans back to work," Pence said.
GAY IMMIGRANTS GET GREEN CARDS IF SPOUSE IS AMERICAN
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats are trying to broaden support for immigration reform by reaching out to the gay and lesbian community with a provision in immigration legislation that would allow gay and lesbian Americans to bring foreign partners home to the United States.
Under current law, American citizens and other legal permanent residents can get a green card or immigrant visa for a spouse or immediate family members living abroad. However, the same rights do not extend to same-sex couples living in the country.
During a news conference on Capitol Hill Thursday, Democratic Reps. Jerrold Nadler of New York, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Mike Honda of California, among others, urged Congress to pass the Uniting American Families Act as part of a comprehensive immigration reform package this year.
"Right now too many same-sex, binational couples face an impossible choice," said Gutierrez, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, "to live apart or to break the law to be with partners, their families and children."
“Government should never engage in purposeless, gratuitous cruelty and we should stop it," Nadler said.
Fox News Poll: Most Oppose Government Suit Over Arizona LawWith no support from the GOP, the comprehensive immigration bill introduced by Gutierrez last December has stalled in the House. Republicans say this legislation won't help.
"These are creative people who just have the wrong philosophy," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a member of the immigration subcommittee. "It's an alliance designed to grant amnesty."
"It tries to redefine traditional marriage. I can't support that," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told Fox News. "If they're looking to truly reach out to conservatives and Republicans and do something in a bipartisan way, this isn't it."
The legislation appears to be part of an effort to strengthen support on the left, rather than the right, by targeting a constituency that has yet to be heard from in the immigration debate -- the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered community.
"Last time around the pro-immigration side took us for granted. ... It is crucial to shore up the support of real genuine progressives who will pick up the phone and call their representatives," said Rachel Tiven of Immigration Equality, an organization that describes itself as one fighting for equal immigration rights for the LGBT community as well as HIV positive immigrants and their families.
Last month in Arizona, Phoenix' gay chamber of commerce urged national gay rights groups not to boycott the state over its impending immigration law that allows a crackdown by local police on illegals, saying the decision would hurt gay-friendly businesses. Proposed comprehensive immigration reform legislation in Congress is in part a reaction to criticism that the federal government has not done enough to resolve illegal immigration in the country.
Because this isn't discrimination at all! No, this is EQUAL OPPORTUNITY! We want illegals, gays, and gay illegals to feel comfortable in society. You know what? Gay unions are not marriages. Thus, they cannot bring back a spouse from a foreign country because they can't have spouses. I am sick of all this PC favoritism in the name of equal rights. Illegal immigrants are illegal, whether they're gay or not. I can't comment any more on this or I'll sound like a rage-crazed freak. It's just unbelievable...
GOVERNMENT TO FIX ALL YET AGAIN (only part of the article is here, as it was, well... quite lengthy)
Congress on Thursday passed the stiffest restrictions on banks and Wall Street since the Great Depression, clamping down on lending practices and expanding consumer protections to prevent a repeat of the 2008 meltdown that knocked the economy to its knees.
A year in the making and 22 months after the collapse of Lehman Brothers triggered a worldwide panic in credit and other markets, the bill cleared its final hurdle with a 60-39 Senate vote. It now goes to the White House for President Obama's signature, expected as early as Wednesday.
The law will give the government new powers to break up companies that threaten the economy, create a new agency to guard consumers in their financial transactions and shine a light into shadow financial markets that escaped the oversight of regulators.
Large, failing financial institutions would be liquidated and the costs assessed on their surviving peers. The Federal Reserve is getting new powers while falling under greater congressional scrutiny.
From storefront payday lenders to the biggest banking and investment houses on Wall Street, few players in the financial world are immune to the bill's reach. Consumer and investor transactions, whether simple debit card swipes or the most complex securities trades, face new safeguards or restrictions.
"I'm about to sign Wall Street reform into law, to protect consumers and lay the foundation for a stronger and safer financial system, one that is innovative, creative, competitive and far less prone to panic and collapse," Obama said.
"Unless your business model depends on cutting corners or bilking your customers, you have nothing to fear."
Republicans said the bill is a vast federal overreach that will drive financial-sector jobs overseas. Before the final vote was even cast, House Republican Leader John Boehner called for its repeal.
At an eye-glazing 390,000 words -- half the size of the King James Bible -- the legislation doesn't offer a quick remedy, however. Rather, it lays down prescriptions for regulators to act. In many cases, the real impact won't be felt for years.
One of the top regulators who will be charged with implementing the law, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, said the Senate vote represents a "far-reaching step toward preventing a replay of the recent financial crisis."
The Senate's final passage of the bill, two weeks after the House approved it, is a welcome achievement for a president and congressional Democrats, both increasingly unpopular with voters four months from midterm elections that threaten to put Republicans in charge of Congress. Only three Republicans voted for it -- Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown. Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who has said the bill is not tough enough, voted with most Republicans against it.
The law has been a priority for Obama, ranking just behind his health care overhaul enacted in March. In its final form, the package hews closely to the plan unwrapped a year ago by the White House and in some ways is even tougher. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs promptly cast the vote in political terms.
"This will be a vote that Democrats will talk about through November as a way of highlighting the choice that people will get to make in 2010," he said.
The political benefits, however, stand to be overshadowed by lingering high unemployment. And Republicans were betting that public antipathy toward big government and worries over jobs would trump their anger at Wall Street.
"We're going to be driving jobs and business overseas with this massive piece of legislation," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who worked with Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut on certain aspects of the bill, denounced it as a "legislative monster."
Whenever the government gets involved in something, it jacks it up. The free market is supposed to go up and down; it's what makes it free. It's not free if the government has its greedy, idiotic hand in it all the time. IT CANNOT FUNCTION if you don't let it. And not only is the market becoming enslaved, but so will we if we let this madness continue. The people and the businesses will work things out. The government needs to stay out or there will be consequences. No, that's not a threat. That's just the conviction of someone who observes history.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
This Is Our Year (Because If It's Not Ours... Whose Is It?)
This is an important election year. We, the Republicans, have the advantage. For once the Democrats' idiocy has worked in our favor, at least in the short term. But if we take advantage of this, we can work out a long-term recovery of our nation. As long as we don't lose our minds like they did.
Anyway, if anyone from Michigan Congressional District Two is out there, VOTE FOR JAY RIEMERSMA! At least go to his website (I'll post a link) and check out his campaign. (Notice I refrained from saying "check him out" because I know how kids my age are going to take that. Ah, the wonders of sex education and public schools... but [have I said this before?] that's another rant.)
When I saw his commercial I immdeiately got a good impression, so I checked out his website (knowing how false good impressions often are). After looking over his website, I sent in information in order for the campaign to contact me to help/support them in any way I could. I just hope he wins the primary.
Because who in this entire country would be stupid enough to elect a Democrat AGAIN?!?!? As for the gubernatorial race, I think I'm going to support Mike Bouchard. For one thing, he's the only one of the five candidates who had the link to where he stands on issues clearly accessible on his home page. For another, he has been a small business owner, a sheriff, and a state Senator. He has legislative experience combined with a true understanding for the everyday citizen. I agree with all of his general positions. He has a great record of lowering/opposing taxes, as well as a great record for helping the family. He pushed for the Michigan Sex Offender Registry and chaired the education committee. He's an NRA member and, best of all his daughter is going to Michigan State.
As put on his website, we need to focus more on the next generation than the next election. I couldn't agree more.
So, it's not definite yet, but I'm pretty sure my support goes to him.
We've gotta get it right, here, folks. This is our year. With any luck, this Democratic screw-up will be unrivaled by any in the future and our nation won't be completely screwed. However, if that's true, then this is our chance. We have to get the majority now, get good officials in now, and in general be smart now, or we might never have another chance.
But then, I'm sure this isn't the Dems' last screw-up. I mean, that goes against their personal theology and over a century of history.
Still, we shouldn't blow this awesome chance off.
THIS IS OUR YEAR!!!!!!!!!!
Cuz it's certainly not THEIRS.
Anyway, if anyone from Michigan Congressional District Two is out there, VOTE FOR JAY RIEMERSMA! At least go to his website (I'll post a link) and check out his campaign. (Notice I refrained from saying "check him out" because I know how kids my age are going to take that. Ah, the wonders of sex education and public schools... but [have I said this before?] that's another rant.)
When I saw his commercial I immdeiately got a good impression, so I checked out his website (knowing how false good impressions often are). After looking over his website, I sent in information in order for the campaign to contact me to help/support them in any way I could. I just hope he wins the primary.
Because who in this entire country would be stupid enough to elect a Democrat AGAIN?!?!? As for the gubernatorial race, I think I'm going to support Mike Bouchard. For one thing, he's the only one of the five candidates who had the link to where he stands on issues clearly accessible on his home page. For another, he has been a small business owner, a sheriff, and a state Senator. He has legislative experience combined with a true understanding for the everyday citizen. I agree with all of his general positions. He has a great record of lowering/opposing taxes, as well as a great record for helping the family. He pushed for the Michigan Sex Offender Registry and chaired the education committee. He's an NRA member and, best of all his daughter is going to Michigan State.
As put on his website, we need to focus more on the next generation than the next election. I couldn't agree more.
So, it's not definite yet, but I'm pretty sure my support goes to him.
We've gotta get it right, here, folks. This is our year. With any luck, this Democratic screw-up will be unrivaled by any in the future and our nation won't be completely screwed. However, if that's true, then this is our chance. We have to get the majority now, get good officials in now, and in general be smart now, or we might never have another chance.
But then, I'm sure this isn't the Dems' last screw-up. I mean, that goes against their personal theology and over a century of history.
Still, we shouldn't blow this awesome chance off.
THIS IS OUR YEAR!!!!!!!!!!
Cuz it's certainly not THEIRS.
At Least They're Not Blaming Bush For This One...
The Democrats are in a frenzy trying to figure out what to do about the fact that Gibbs has dared to insinuate that Democrats might face the slight possibility of somewhat sort of not retaining their congressional majority. This wily, out-of-the blue claim is what we in the States call "The Truth."
So you can see why the Democrats are enraged. Actually, I can't, because the American public ALREADY KNOW. Anyone who would have endorsed a Democrat KNOWS. All Gibbs did was state the obvious. He did nothing to harm the Democrats whatsoever.
Oh, oh! Here's a conspiracy theory: Everyone knows that, although the Democrats are blaming Gibbs for possible future disadvantages in the upcoming election, it is, in fact, THEIR OWN FAULT for destroying our great nation in record time. However, if they can pin the blame on Gibbs, maybe everyone will think it's all Gibbs' fault that the Democrats look bad and that most Democrats aren't that bad. The conviction that most Democrats aren't bad will inspire voters to flock to the Dems and thus allow them to retain the majority. Maybe THAT'S why Pelosi is upset about absolutely nothing.
Or maybe she's just a nut who's upset about absolutely nothing.
At least they aren't blaming Bush this time.
Below is the FOXNews article on the "issue", with my comments in bold:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the driving force behind the Obama agenda in Congress, sharply criticized White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs during a closed-door House Democratic caucus meeting late Tuesday, according to Democratic sources.
For once the Democrats are criticizing someone other than conservatives.
Pelosi, irked since Sunday by what she and other top Democrats considered Gibbs' careless and dismissive comments that Democrats could lose their House majority this November, upbraided a top White House aide as she knocked Gibbs' unwelcome handicapping of House races.
I love that word, "irked." Anyway, Pelosi is "irked" because of Gibbs' careless and dismissive comments? How about the public being irked about Democrats' "careless and dismissive" passage of the "stimulus"? Their "careless and dismissive" method of dealing with the American public, especially in the healthcare debate? Their "careless and dismissive" reactions to terrorist attacks and their general "careless and dismissive" attitude toward America? Clearly, it's not all Gibbs' fault if they happen to lose the majority.
"How could he [Gibbs] know what's going on in our districts?" Pelosi said, according to Democrats who attended the meeting. "Some may weigh his words more closely than others. We have made our disagreements known to the White House."
Senior Pelosi staff contacted the White House Monday to express displeasure with Gibbs' statement on "Meet the Press" that Democrats could lose the majority won in 2006 after 12 years out of power.
Honestly, like everyone doesn't already KNOW that.
Pelosi aides and operatives at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee were told, according to sources, that Gibbs would "walk back" his dire prediction at Monday's White House briefing. Instead, Gibbs said he was merely -- and, by Washington standards, courageously -- stating "the obvious."
Again, I just LOVE how they're calling it a "dire prediction". This is much bigger than just something someone said. It would have happened anyway.
That declaration deepened the sense of House Democratic alienation from Gibbs that boiled over with tonight's rare broadside from Pelosi. But this wasn't the only manifestation of Democratic pique.
House Democratic leaders encouraged rank-and-file party members to vent their anger at White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, a key architect of the successful Democratic plan to win back the House in 2006, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina, Political Director Patrick Gaspard and the head of White House legislative affairs Phil Schiliro. Schiliro is a former senior aide to Rep. Henry Waxman, the powerful chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a Pelosi ally.
"There was no doubt where we, meaning the caucus, stood," a top Democratic aide said.
In the past two days, House leaders Steny Hoyer, the majority leader, and Chris Van Hollen, head of the DCCC, have declared Democrats will retain their majority.
"I don't think we will lose the House," Hoyer said Tuesday.
Republicans need 39 seats to win back the majority, a threshold non-partisan analysts say is within reach. Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine said Tuesday Republicans could win 28 seats, a much higher figure than he's previously acknowledged.
In tonight's caucus meeting, according to Democratic sources, Pelosi asked Dan Turton, one of Obama's top House legislative advisers, to acknowledge Gibbs' comment provoked unhelpful speculation about a potential midterm power shift.
Yes, his comment and his comment alone (definitely not any previous actions taken by Democrats) "provoked unhelpful speculation about a potential midterm power shift."
Gibbs did not attend the meeting. One top Democratic aide described Gibbs performance this week as "quite astonishing."
I know! I never thought I'd see a Democrat who could come to terms with reality! It really is quite astonishing.
Another Democratic consultant who works closely with the DCCC said officials there and within the party's fundraising ranks were worried Gibbs' comments could dampen enthusiasm and reduce contributions from Washington's K Street lobbyists, who might steer more money to the GOP, and grassroots activists.
Man, I'm telling you, THEY'RE ALREADY ABOUT AS "DAMPENED" AS THEY'RE GONNA GET.
The strategist described rank-and-file House Democrats as "livid."
Really? Kind of like how taxpayers and generally any patriotic American feels?
"They feel thrown under the bus," the strategist said.
The feud occured a day before Obama is due to plot legislative strategy with House Democratic leaders at the White House.
"Should be an interesting meeting," a top House Democratic aide said dryly.
One thing that might defuse the tension: Pelosi's contention at the end of tonight's caucus meeting that, no matter the current friction, Democrats should not be distracted by "friendly fire."
Pelosi and other top Democrats believe Obama should doggedly protect a House majority that has delivered on every White House priority: health care, energy, new financial regulations, campaign finance, stimulus and extending unemployment insurance and existing business tax breaks.
What will he do to protect the House majority, exactly? Get his al Qaeda buddies to blow up Republican voters? Change the Constitution so that he gets to decide who's elected? Never put anything past a Democrat.
Obama has dispatched Vice President Biden to headline fund-raisers for individual House Democrats. Obama has focused most of his personal fund-raising efforts on Senate races. Obama has headlined two DCCC fund-raisers and the Democratic National Committee, at the behest of the White House, this week sent $667,000 to the DCCC.
I hope the $667,000 came from fundraisers and not "fundraisres" (aka taxes).
And another thing: it doesn't matter how much "fundraising" they do. Everyone still knows the truth.
In fact, watching Democrats handle money only reminds them of it.
So you can see why the Democrats are enraged. Actually, I can't, because the American public ALREADY KNOW. Anyone who would have endorsed a Democrat KNOWS. All Gibbs did was state the obvious. He did nothing to harm the Democrats whatsoever.
Oh, oh! Here's a conspiracy theory: Everyone knows that, although the Democrats are blaming Gibbs for possible future disadvantages in the upcoming election, it is, in fact, THEIR OWN FAULT for destroying our great nation in record time. However, if they can pin the blame on Gibbs, maybe everyone will think it's all Gibbs' fault that the Democrats look bad and that most Democrats aren't that bad. The conviction that most Democrats aren't bad will inspire voters to flock to the Dems and thus allow them to retain the majority. Maybe THAT'S why Pelosi is upset about absolutely nothing.
Or maybe she's just a nut who's upset about absolutely nothing.
At least they aren't blaming Bush this time.
Below is the FOXNews article on the "issue", with my comments in bold:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the driving force behind the Obama agenda in Congress, sharply criticized White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs during a closed-door House Democratic caucus meeting late Tuesday, according to Democratic sources.
For once the Democrats are criticizing someone other than conservatives.
Pelosi, irked since Sunday by what she and other top Democrats considered Gibbs' careless and dismissive comments that Democrats could lose their House majority this November, upbraided a top White House aide as she knocked Gibbs' unwelcome handicapping of House races.
I love that word, "irked." Anyway, Pelosi is "irked" because of Gibbs' careless and dismissive comments? How about the public being irked about Democrats' "careless and dismissive" passage of the "stimulus"? Their "careless and dismissive" method of dealing with the American public, especially in the healthcare debate? Their "careless and dismissive" reactions to terrorist attacks and their general "careless and dismissive" attitude toward America? Clearly, it's not all Gibbs' fault if they happen to lose the majority.
"How could he [Gibbs] know what's going on in our districts?" Pelosi said, according to Democrats who attended the meeting. "Some may weigh his words more closely than others. We have made our disagreements known to the White House."
Senior Pelosi staff contacted the White House Monday to express displeasure with Gibbs' statement on "Meet the Press" that Democrats could lose the majority won in 2006 after 12 years out of power.
Honestly, like everyone doesn't already KNOW that.
Pelosi aides and operatives at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee were told, according to sources, that Gibbs would "walk back" his dire prediction at Monday's White House briefing. Instead, Gibbs said he was merely -- and, by Washington standards, courageously -- stating "the obvious."
Again, I just LOVE how they're calling it a "dire prediction". This is much bigger than just something someone said. It would have happened anyway.
That declaration deepened the sense of House Democratic alienation from Gibbs that boiled over with tonight's rare broadside from Pelosi. But this wasn't the only manifestation of Democratic pique.
House Democratic leaders encouraged rank-and-file party members to vent their anger at White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, a key architect of the successful Democratic plan to win back the House in 2006, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina, Political Director Patrick Gaspard and the head of White House legislative affairs Phil Schiliro. Schiliro is a former senior aide to Rep. Henry Waxman, the powerful chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a Pelosi ally.
"There was no doubt where we, meaning the caucus, stood," a top Democratic aide said.
In the past two days, House leaders Steny Hoyer, the majority leader, and Chris Van Hollen, head of the DCCC, have declared Democrats will retain their majority.
"I don't think we will lose the House," Hoyer said Tuesday.
Republicans need 39 seats to win back the majority, a threshold non-partisan analysts say is within reach. Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine said Tuesday Republicans could win 28 seats, a much higher figure than he's previously acknowledged.
In tonight's caucus meeting, according to Democratic sources, Pelosi asked Dan Turton, one of Obama's top House legislative advisers, to acknowledge Gibbs' comment provoked unhelpful speculation about a potential midterm power shift.
Yes, his comment and his comment alone (definitely not any previous actions taken by Democrats) "provoked unhelpful speculation about a potential midterm power shift."
Gibbs did not attend the meeting. One top Democratic aide described Gibbs performance this week as "quite astonishing."
I know! I never thought I'd see a Democrat who could come to terms with reality! It really is quite astonishing.
Another Democratic consultant who works closely with the DCCC said officials there and within the party's fundraising ranks were worried Gibbs' comments could dampen enthusiasm and reduce contributions from Washington's K Street lobbyists, who might steer more money to the GOP, and grassroots activists.
Man, I'm telling you, THEY'RE ALREADY ABOUT AS "DAMPENED" AS THEY'RE GONNA GET.
The strategist described rank-and-file House Democrats as "livid."
Really? Kind of like how taxpayers and generally any patriotic American feels?
"They feel thrown under the bus," the strategist said.
The feud occured a day before Obama is due to plot legislative strategy with House Democratic leaders at the White House.
"Should be an interesting meeting," a top House Democratic aide said dryly.
One thing that might defuse the tension: Pelosi's contention at the end of tonight's caucus meeting that, no matter the current friction, Democrats should not be distracted by "friendly fire."
Pelosi and other top Democrats believe Obama should doggedly protect a House majority that has delivered on every White House priority: health care, energy, new financial regulations, campaign finance, stimulus and extending unemployment insurance and existing business tax breaks.
What will he do to protect the House majority, exactly? Get his al Qaeda buddies to blow up Republican voters? Change the Constitution so that he gets to decide who's elected? Never put anything past a Democrat.
Obama has dispatched Vice President Biden to headline fund-raisers for individual House Democrats. Obama has focused most of his personal fund-raising efforts on Senate races. Obama has headlined two DCCC fund-raisers and the Democratic National Committee, at the behest of the White House, this week sent $667,000 to the DCCC.
I hope the $667,000 came from fundraisers and not "fundraisres" (aka taxes).
And another thing: it doesn't matter how much "fundraising" they do. Everyone still knows the truth.
In fact, watching Democrats handle money only reminds them of it.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
I Can't Exactly Sum This One Up...
Hello, Guantanamo Bay Resort, Would You Like To Make A Reservation?
www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/13/gitmo-detainees-serve-time-playing-games-talking-family-skype-taking-classes/
That reminds me of a commercial for Oreos in which a soldier oversees is talking to his son through a laptop (possibly with Skype?). Except the Gitmo detainees are not American war heros. They are enemies of our country, and they get to watch flatscreen TVs and enjoy a view of the Caribbean Sea. They get to play table football and talk to their families. Aww, how sweet. And especially "compliant" detainees enjoy an increased level of freedom. Compliant? They're terrorists. They're there because they WEREN'T compliant. (...) I give up (not on changing America, but on convincing Dems; why would I want them helping me help America anyway?).
This is insane. The detainees enjoy getting to watch Twilight. This shows their level of ingenuity. And somehow we let them terrorize our nation for years because we don't want to "offend" them. Stupid Democrats.
Baseball Boycotts Arizona? (If Only The Liberals And Immigrants Would, Too...)
www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/13/campaign-heats-star-game-arizona/
So they want to move the All-Star game in protest of Arizona's new immigration law. Where are they planning on moving it to? Mexico?
Another thing: what's wrong with the law, anyway? It makes perfect logical sense that illegal immigrants in a state that borders Mexico tend to occasionally LOOK MEXICAN! It doesn't make sense to stop every single person and ask them if they're illegal immigrants. You have a description of the suspect. Whether the suspect likes it or not is not our problem. And listen to this (from the article at the above link):
"The law makes illegal immigration a state crime and would require local police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant provided they don't stop them for that reason alone."
So, in other words, if you're a Mexican driving eight other Mexicans down the highway at ninety miles an hour in a neon orange van, you're going to get pulled over for speeding. And if the officer is astute, he will smell a rat and check the immigration status of the nine of you (and gently suggest that you refurbish your ride).
My advice to Mexicans is: if you come here, get citizenship. Whether or not you get citizenship: observe the speed limit.
This Just In: Tea Partiers Are Evil Racists Out To Get Your Children!
www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/13/tea-party-preempts-racist-resolution-condemns-bigoted-naacp/
In condemning every conservative action as racist, it is the NAACP and the entire liberal population in general who are actually the ones being racist.
There are racists in every crowd. I'm sure I would not be hard-pressed to find a few racist Democrats (gasp!). But since even racist Democrats are, in fact, Democrats, the Democrats leave them alone.
No, it's only when there is the prospect of political gain or advantage that the liberals proceed to pick apart every incident in a desperate search for incriminating evidence; evidence that conservatives are hard-hearted racists, despite the fact that they fought for and freed all those slaves in the Civil War (anyone recall that little detail?).
Well, the Democrats have found their isolated instances of racism and proceed to denounce the entire Tea Party movement as racist.
There are some racist signs, but even a blind man can see that most of our signs say, "Taxed Enough Already" and "No Taxation Without Deliberation." But since we are being oppressed by a black man (even though he's as white as he is black), I suppose we are racist. Imagine that.
I must say, this has been quite a post, but when I went on FOXNews.com, it was all right there, waiting to enrage me... I couldn't resist.
However, such a post cannot be titled easily and eloquently to include all of its parts, so I just went with the title that described the post and liberals' latest antics best.
www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/13/gitmo-detainees-serve-time-playing-games-talking-family-skype-taking-classes/
That reminds me of a commercial for Oreos in which a soldier oversees is talking to his son through a laptop (possibly with Skype?). Except the Gitmo detainees are not American war heros. They are enemies of our country, and they get to watch flatscreen TVs and enjoy a view of the Caribbean Sea. They get to play table football and talk to their families. Aww, how sweet. And especially "compliant" detainees enjoy an increased level of freedom. Compliant? They're terrorists. They're there because they WEREN'T compliant. (...) I give up (not on changing America, but on convincing Dems; why would I want them helping me help America anyway?).
This is insane. The detainees enjoy getting to watch Twilight. This shows their level of ingenuity. And somehow we let them terrorize our nation for years because we don't want to "offend" them. Stupid Democrats.
Baseball Boycotts Arizona? (If Only The Liberals And Immigrants Would, Too...)
www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/13/campaign-heats-star-game-arizona/
So they want to move the All-Star game in protest of Arizona's new immigration law. Where are they planning on moving it to? Mexico?
Another thing: what's wrong with the law, anyway? It makes perfect logical sense that illegal immigrants in a state that borders Mexico tend to occasionally LOOK MEXICAN! It doesn't make sense to stop every single person and ask them if they're illegal immigrants. You have a description of the suspect. Whether the suspect likes it or not is not our problem. And listen to this (from the article at the above link):
"The law makes illegal immigration a state crime and would require local police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant provided they don't stop them for that reason alone."
So, in other words, if you're a Mexican driving eight other Mexicans down the highway at ninety miles an hour in a neon orange van, you're going to get pulled over for speeding. And if the officer is astute, he will smell a rat and check the immigration status of the nine of you (and gently suggest that you refurbish your ride).
My advice to Mexicans is: if you come here, get citizenship. Whether or not you get citizenship: observe the speed limit.
This Just In: Tea Partiers Are Evil Racists Out To Get Your Children!
www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/13/tea-party-preempts-racist-resolution-condemns-bigoted-naacp/
In condemning every conservative action as racist, it is the NAACP and the entire liberal population in general who are actually the ones being racist.
There are racists in every crowd. I'm sure I would not be hard-pressed to find a few racist Democrats (gasp!). But since even racist Democrats are, in fact, Democrats, the Democrats leave them alone.
No, it's only when there is the prospect of political gain or advantage that the liberals proceed to pick apart every incident in a desperate search for incriminating evidence; evidence that conservatives are hard-hearted racists, despite the fact that they fought for and freed all those slaves in the Civil War (anyone recall that little detail?).
Well, the Democrats have found their isolated instances of racism and proceed to denounce the entire Tea Party movement as racist.
There are some racist signs, but even a blind man can see that most of our signs say, "Taxed Enough Already" and "No Taxation Without Deliberation." But since we are being oppressed by a black man (even though he's as white as he is black), I suppose we are racist. Imagine that.
I must say, this has been quite a post, but when I went on FOXNews.com, it was all right there, waiting to enrage me... I couldn't resist.
However, such a post cannot be titled easily and eloquently to include all of its parts, so I just went with the title that described the post and liberals' latest antics best.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Fire Illegals!
If you find illegal immigrants employed in the U.S., what do you do?
A. Deport them
B. Fire them
C. Is this a trick question?
The answer is A. Illegal immigrants, as evidenced by the fact that they are ILLEGAL, are not legal. Any questions?
If you find an illegal immigrant, whether he's employed or not, you deport him. It's quite simple. (Unless, of course, said illegal immigrant has the entirety of the mainstream media behind him [even though he never showed his birth certificate and his Social Security number is invalid] as he desperately competes for the presidency of the United States by lying through his teeth. THEN, of course, you're not even allowed to talk about THINKING about talking bad about him.) As I was saying, it's not even an issue that deserves to be on the news. People who are here illegally are not allowed to be here. Quite simple.
At least, it was, up until the point when this idiot in the White House and his administration decided that if they found illegal immigrants employed in the U.S., they would fire them, not deport them.
Well, THAT'S gonna teach them. If they come to America ILLEGALLY, all they have to do is get a job and they're untouchable. Sure, they might get fired, but they still get to stay here and live on the streets, pickpocketing and looting. This is why we need to deport them, not fire them and LET THEM GO. (WTH?!?!?!?!?!?)
You see, firing illegal immigrants somewhat defeats the purpose of their being ILLEGAL. You can fire an ordinary U.S. citizen. (You can also try a U.S. citizen in a civilian court, even though they haven't killed 3,000 people in an act of war--but that's another rant.) Anyone who is anything but a citizen should be deported (or tried in a military tribunal).
But Obama never could stop being friendly with people like illegals and terrorists (and anyone he could get away with bowing to).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/terror-experts-blast-obama-dropping-references-islamic-extremism/
In Obama's National Security Strategy, he apparently decided it was a good idea to drop references to Islamic extremism in the War on Terror. Well, when the terrorists are shouting, "For Allah," etc. before massacring the American people, it's a bit difficult to "drop the reference."
From FOXNews.com--[As it unveiled its new National Security Strategy last May, administration officials said the shift in emphasis was critical in undercutting Al Qaeda's efforts to portray its attacks on the U.S. and the west as a justified holy war.
Terror leaders "play into the false perception that they are religious leaders defending a holy cause, when in fact they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims," said top administration counterterror deputy John Brennan during a May 24 speech explaining the shift. He added that "describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie -- propagated by al-Qaida and its affiliates to justify terrorism -- that the United States is somehow at war against Islam."]
What, we're going to convince the people who hate us that they're really NOT fighting a holy war and therefore should give up their cause immediately and without a fight? Something about the way they, you know, strap bombs to children and fly planes into buildings makes me doubt that we're going to be able to convince them of anything.
And what's this about how if we define terrorists as Islamic extremists, people will be even more convinced that we're at war against Islam? No offense, but... WHO CARES???? We ARE at war against RADICAL Islam. Whether we LABEL them or not doesn't change the fact that this is how it is. But if we could come to terms with the fact that WE ARE FIGHTING ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS, maybe we could begin to make some progress in, you know, protecting our country. Who cares if the rest of the world THINKS we hate Muslims? That's not exactly our chief concern at the moment, is it?
If we really cared about protecting our country, terrorists would be being interrogated, tried in military tribunals, locked up (not IN AMERICA), and/or dead right now, AND not only would illegal immigrants be deported (regardless of their state of employment), but the whackjobs in Washington who are stupid enough to befriend terrorists and illegals and jeopardize the safety of our nation for the sake of being politically correct would be, too.
A. Deport them
B. Fire them
C. Is this a trick question?
The answer is A. Illegal immigrants, as evidenced by the fact that they are ILLEGAL, are not legal. Any questions?
If you find an illegal immigrant, whether he's employed or not, you deport him. It's quite simple. (Unless, of course, said illegal immigrant has the entirety of the mainstream media behind him [even though he never showed his birth certificate and his Social Security number is invalid] as he desperately competes for the presidency of the United States by lying through his teeth. THEN, of course, you're not even allowed to talk about THINKING about talking bad about him.) As I was saying, it's not even an issue that deserves to be on the news. People who are here illegally are not allowed to be here. Quite simple.
At least, it was, up until the point when this idiot in the White House and his administration decided that if they found illegal immigrants employed in the U.S., they would fire them, not deport them.
Well, THAT'S gonna teach them. If they come to America ILLEGALLY, all they have to do is get a job and they're untouchable. Sure, they might get fired, but they still get to stay here and live on the streets, pickpocketing and looting. This is why we need to deport them, not fire them and LET THEM GO. (WTH?!?!?!?!?!?)
You see, firing illegal immigrants somewhat defeats the purpose of their being ILLEGAL. You can fire an ordinary U.S. citizen. (You can also try a U.S. citizen in a civilian court, even though they haven't killed 3,000 people in an act of war--but that's another rant.) Anyone who is anything but a citizen should be deported (or tried in a military tribunal).
But Obama never could stop being friendly with people like illegals and terrorists (and anyone he could get away with bowing to).
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/terror-experts-blast-obama-dropping-references-islamic-extremism/
In Obama's National Security Strategy, he apparently decided it was a good idea to drop references to Islamic extremism in the War on Terror. Well, when the terrorists are shouting, "For Allah," etc. before massacring the American people, it's a bit difficult to "drop the reference."
From FOXNews.com--[As it unveiled its new National Security Strategy last May, administration officials said the shift in emphasis was critical in undercutting Al Qaeda's efforts to portray its attacks on the U.S. and the west as a justified holy war.
Terror leaders "play into the false perception that they are religious leaders defending a holy cause, when in fact they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims," said top administration counterterror deputy John Brennan during a May 24 speech explaining the shift. He added that "describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie -- propagated by al-Qaida and its affiliates to justify terrorism -- that the United States is somehow at war against Islam."]
What, we're going to convince the people who hate us that they're really NOT fighting a holy war and therefore should give up their cause immediately and without a fight? Something about the way they, you know, strap bombs to children and fly planes into buildings makes me doubt that we're going to be able to convince them of anything.
And what's this about how if we define terrorists as Islamic extremists, people will be even more convinced that we're at war against Islam? No offense, but... WHO CARES???? We ARE at war against RADICAL Islam. Whether we LABEL them or not doesn't change the fact that this is how it is. But if we could come to terms with the fact that WE ARE FIGHTING ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS, maybe we could begin to make some progress in, you know, protecting our country. Who cares if the rest of the world THINKS we hate Muslims? That's not exactly our chief concern at the moment, is it?
If we really cared about protecting our country, terrorists would be being interrogated, tried in military tribunals, locked up (not IN AMERICA), and/or dead right now, AND not only would illegal immigrants be deported (regardless of their state of employment), but the whackjobs in Washington who are stupid enough to befriend terrorists and illegals and jeopardize the safety of our nation for the sake of being politically correct would be, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)