Tuesday, November 25, 2008

The rebuttal against Global Warming Alarmists

Besides the one that comes immediately to mind, "Eat shit and die assholes..."

The National Review Online's Planet Gore section highlights laughable statements from Google, who urge the government, led by President-elect Barry Obama and a near-filibuster-proof Congress to combat "Global Warming:"

Rather than more government, how about this?
The private marketplace is better suited than the government to pick energy winners and losers, so government should step back and let the market find the answers to meeting our energy needs in a reliable and affordable manner. Let the market bring technologies online when the economics of the technologies work without handouts and when the technology is truly (and commercially) viable. Repeal subsidies. Avoid mandates. Don’t put a price on a gas that we exhale and that must exist for human, animal, and plant life to continue. Don’t sign on to emission-reduction schemes that will handicap our economy, while doing little, if anything, to control emissions. Tap our nation’s abundant natural resources, and quit letting exploration and recovery efforts get stalled for years in the courts and in the agencies. Build the baseload units, including nuclear-energy plants, that have always met, can still meet — and must exist if we want to meet the bulk of our energy and electricity demand. Be realistic about the current state of, and future prospects for, renewable energies. Recognize that vibrant free markets and a protected environment are not mutually exclusive goals.

Sound like a winner to anyone else?
Has anyone else noticed that it's virtually impossible to reason with a liberal?

A Panacea for Economic Growth

The Democrats just don't get it, do they? According to this article, "Governments across the world are now diving into deficit spending, chosen as a means with which to "stimulate" their national economies. The US is leading the global parade. Only two weeks ago, the deficit estimates for next year were between $US 1.5 TRILLION to an average of $US 2.1 TRILLION. But in an interview last weekend, President-elect Obama said that the government should not worry about deficits over the next two years while spending money to jumpstart the ailing economy."

Yet didn't Barry Obama and his Democratic counterpoints argue that it was Bush's "Tax Cuts for the Rich" and his deficit spending that put us in our current economic predicament?

Most of you probably realize that it's okay for forked-tongued Liberals to speak out of both sides of their mouths, especially when it comes to fighting global warming, giving handouts to poor people, and paying for universal health care.

We've heard from President-Elect, Barry Obama that he's planning on raising taxes on the rich, raising the capital gains tax, lowering carbon emissions, etc. Ultimately, it will be the middle class that suffers, in lost jobs, higher energies, and less wealth, overall.

Why, so we can line the pockets of people like T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore in their trumped up battle against Global Warming, Big Oil, and Big Business.

According to Scott Bensing of Townhall.com, "
The reality is simple, lower taxes attract businesses, which generate jobs and money for the local economy. That is how to improve the current economic environment, not back-breaking tax hikes and the anti-business environment promised by Democrats."

Yet, Democrats across the nation are looking to raise taxes in the time of economic downturn.

Haven't we been through this before with Jimmy Carter?
The solution is to cut taxes as well as spending but to cut spending faster than taxes to leave more real economic and financial resources in private and individual hands so that they can repair their balance sheets. On top of that, interest rates must be raised - not lowered - to reward savers for producing more than they now consume.
Democrats just don't get it; that's the gesalt for spurring economic growth. After all, you can't tax your way out of a recession.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Michigan: A Case Study on Disastrous Democratic Policies

I came across this article, courtesy of the National Review's Planet Gore section. Now, if you haven't checked it out, it's a must read regarding the global warming joke, the carbon credit sham, and all things anti-radical environmentalism. Furthermore, it dispels and refutes so much of what is forced down our collective throats by the Left and their environmental benefactors and is almost accepted as the naked truth by a majority of the American populace (see: those who voted for Barack Obama).

This article in particular discusses the disastrous economic policies pushed onto the good citizens of Michigan by their governor, Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, and new member of Obama's economic team.

Need we remind how bad of shape, economically, Michigan is...why? Because the home of the once-proud Big 3 Automakers has now forced "alternative energy" onto its population, all in the name of "global warming." See, it all starts with "reducing carbon emissions," even though a rise in C02 has NEVER been linked to raising temperatures, and despite the fact that even though C02 levels have risen over the past decade, the Earth is actually cooling.
The result has been a Michigan economy that has drowned under Granholm’s watch, with unemployment tripling to a nation-leading 9.3 percent at the same time that Michigan’s debilitating economic fundamentals — high taxes and overgenerous concessions to organized labor — have gone unaddressed. Granholm, however, has missed few opportunities for photo ops touting the companies that have benefiited from her tax handouts or her road-construction spending.
GO figure.

You see, sorry to disappoint you, but global warming is a fucking joke. It's a spurious imitation, a fraud, a feign, a sham, just so Al "An Inconvenient Truth" Gore can make a few bucks on his carbon credit contrivance.

The complete article:

Obama Channels Granholm on Green Stimulus [Henry Payne]

Detroit, Mich. — Now we know why Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm is on President-elect Barack Obama’s economic policy team. Judging by Obama’s Saturday economic address, he plans to address the nation’s ills with the same inept policies Granholm has championed for the last six years here in Michigan.

Granholm and Obama have much in common: They are both young Democratic party protégés, both are charismatic personalities, and both are left-wing, Harvard-educated lawyers with little experience running anything prior to assuming office. Like Granholm, Obama appears to have little grasp of market economics, but prefers showy public-works programs and utopian visions of bridging a carbon-addicted America to a new green economy that will employ millions.

The similarities between Obamanomics (as outlined in Saturday’s radio address) and Granholmnomics (as outlined in her January State of the State address) are striking.


“(My stimulus plan) will be a two-year, nationwide effort to jumpstart job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy. We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels, fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead.”


“I’m proposing a Michigan economic stimulus package — nearly a billion dollars for needed infrastructure and building improvements, creating upwards of 28,000 construction and other jobs over the next two years. A billion dollars in economic stimulus from new construction. But let me talk for a moment about one sector that has blockbuster potential for Michigan: alternative energy . . . . Because of the need to reduce global warming and end our dependence on expensive foreign oil, the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries will create millions of good paying jobs. I say we will win these jobs for Michigan and replace the lost manufacturing jobs with a whole new, growing sector.”

The echo is eerie (if Obama were Joe Biden, one might be suspicious of plagiarism).

And likely to get eerier still. How has Granholm gone about creating this new green economy? With mandates and targeted tax breaks — just as Obama will likely propose. Granholm spearheaded a state Renewable Power Standard that mandates 20 percent of Michigan's energy come from wind power by 2020, and she has showered tax breaks on alternative energy companies. Watch for Obama to do both on the national level.

The result has been a Michigan economy that has drowned under Granholm’s watch, with unemployment tripling to a nation-leading 9.3 percent at the same time that Michigan’s debilitating economic fundamentals — high taxes and overgenerous concessions to organized labor — have gone unaddressed. Granholm, however, has missed few opportunities for photo ops touting the companies that have benefiited from her tax handouts or her road-construction spending.

And she has landed a key position in Obama’s transition team, where she and the president-elect apparently agree that Granholmnomics is America’s future.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Thank you Democrats!

In part 2 in a series of "tongue-in-cheek," snarky, smug, sarcastic remarks, I wanted gleefully offer up a hearty thank you to the Democrats. Yesterday, my salaciousness was directed to the corrupt, liberal Mainstream Media, for essentially distorting and filtering the news, as well as verbally fellating one President-Elect Barry Obama.

Today, my sardonic and caustic wit is directed to the Democrats, once a proud party of the working class. This group of out-of-touch politicians are doing everything within their party to destroy the very fabric of this country.

And it seems we're powerless to stop them.

Two examples come to mind.

First is the issue of "climate change." What this amounts to is nothing more than pandering on behalf of the Democrats, in this case to the environmentalists. In this article, courtesy of Townhall.com, President-elect Obama promises global leadership on climate change.


So much of the "consensus science" utilized by global warming fanacists is faulty AT BEST, doctored at worst. When will these "scientists" (I use that term loosely, as it seems many of a political agenda) realize that instead of getting warmer, the planet is actually cooling, that Arctic ice has been restored to its pre-2002 levels, and CO2 levels were higher (exponentially) than they were prior to the existence of humans (furthermore, CO2 levels on Mars are high as well; where are the humans?).
In the roughly four-minute message, Obama reiterated his support for a cap-and-trade system approach to cutting green house gases. He would establish annual targets to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them another 80 percent by 2050. Obama also promoted anew his proposal to invest $15 billion each year to support private sector efforts toward clean energy.

At a news conference Tuesday, a coalition called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership _ made up of 32 leading corporations, including electric utilities and oil companies, and environmental groups _ urged Obama to press Congress to approve legislation next year for a mandatory cap-and-trade system to limit the release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases. Opponents of such action argue controls on carbon dioxide emissions will increase energy costs.

Under a cap-and-trade program, the government would establish a ceiling on the amount of carbon dioxide that can be released into the air from burning fossil fuels. A utility or industrial plant would have to purchase emission allowances for every ton of pollution released. Anyone who exceeds the cap must either make pollution reductions or buy additional allowances, while those who cut emissions below the cap would be able to sell allowances. Initially the cap would be relatively high and then be lowered gradually to achieve the targeted pollution reductions.

So guess who suffers? The average American...how do you think these companies will pay for these allowance or penalties, by either laying off workers or RAISING PRICES on their wares.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Second pertains to this autoworker's bailout plan. On top of a $700 billion "crap sandwich" (catchphrase courtesy of Michelle Malkin) taxpayers will soon be on the hook for an additional $25 billion to the struggling "Big 3" automobile manufacturers. Once again, the Democrats are pandering to the special interests: this time it's the unions.

Can someone tell me why we should bail a confederation that refuses to embrace what the marketplace dictates? Furthermore, why should the average American pay for a vehicle that costs thousands of dollars MORE compared to a foreign model yet is does not possess the features NOR quality that the aforementioned foreign car has?

Yet the Left implores us to "buy American!." Listen, we would all LOVE to buy American, but why? All we do is enable these auto manufacturers and unions in their "entitlement quest." Instead, it's time we hold them accountable (same with the idiot who bought a $300,000 home on a $30,000 wage, but that's another story for another time).

Ken Blackwell sums it up perfectly:

The Big 3’s woes are largely self-created. For years now their management has been criticized as ineffective. But two numbers tell the story of the primary cause of their insolvency: 73 and 48. The average hourly cost of an hourly wage worker for the Big 3 cost $73 per hour, while the average cost at Toyota and other foreign automakers with production facilities here on American soil is $48 per hour.

What accounts for this disparity? It’s the massive healthcare and pension costs and other benefits that the workers at the Big 3 get through their union-negotiated contracts. These contracts, primarily secured through the United Auto Workers, have created massive obligations. Consequently, the Big 3 either offer a product that is equal in quality and features to their foreign counterparts, but several thousand dollars more expensive per car, or they offer a product for the same price but with fewer features.

There’s no way to escape the plain truth. The costs unions have written into their contracts with the Big 3 must be passed along to consumers. As this either increases prices or decreases value, the Big 3 lose sales to foreign competitors, and so revenues for the Big 3 have dropped. As revenues drop it becomes even more difficult to pay these union-created obligations, so the situation worsens.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

A hearty thanks to the Mainstream Media!

On behalf of millions of easily assuaged Americans, I wanted to issue a public thank you to the Mainstream Media.

Oh you thought I was serious...

I am not, dear reader (not to be confused with what we'll seen refer to President-Elect Barry Obama as: Dear LEADER); nevertheless, I am not serious.

Frankly, I'm pissed.

I navigated over to this website, courtesy of renowned conservative author and mind, Michelle Malkin's site. I wasn't necessarily stunned at the intent of the website, but rather the message, notably the following:

Zogby Poll

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

My God people, what does this say about 1.) our mainstream media; 2.) over 50% of the voting populace?

Regarding the former, what more can be said that hasn't been about the mainstream media? It's not just that they're nauseatingly liberal, it's that they're corrupt as well. Furthermore, it's this gross negligence on their behalf to actually report the news that has further maddened those of us who read alternative news stories (i.e not JUST content disseminated from the MSM). For example, most Americans probably do not realize that Christians in California (notably WHITE Christians) are being harassed and assaulted by homosexual militants. Why, because these aforementioned militants have perceived Prop 8, banning gay marriage outright, to have been passed by white Christians.

Yet it doesn't occur to the supposed enlightened liberal homosexuals that the 70% of blacks and Hispanics who voted for Barack Obama also voted to ban gay marriage.

But where is the Mainstream Media?

No where to be found, naturally. They're off reporting on some elderly woman who spoke out against homosexuality.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Con Over

Wall Street just ran the biggest con in history on the largest population in history: mortgage backed securities and derivatives. This multi-trillion dollar pile of paper is now approaching worthlessness and is bleeding red ink into the books of every financial entity in the land: individuals, businesses, pensions, and governments of all types. No one knows how to value either their own books or more importantly, how to evaluate a company they want to work with or invest in. No one knows how much of this toxic financial waste any institution is keeping on the books. Transparency is on the decline and opacity is on the rise. Credit is drying up and business is slowly grinding down all over the globe. Trust in the financial system and its instruments is being destroyed and could go to zero.

Yet so many keep to their investment routines as if nothing is amiss, that somehow this will blow over. I keep hearing the dreck on TV: buy the dips, we're at the bottom, market turnaround any day now. They keep saying it and many must still believe it. At work I hear how people are going to jump back in and buy the bargains, that stocks are so under priced now and how they are going to make a killing. They don't realize that they will be killed, that actually, they have already been killed. The game is over but no one can see it yet because the drone of the Wall Street con plays on, calming all like the inhabitants of an opium den.

The con by Wall Street is so smooth and has gone on for so long that no investor believes it can ever stop. No matter the extremes of the con, another con will be built on top of it and the game will go on and every one will continue to make money. This is the financial equivalent of the perpetual motion machine, a fallacy in science and equally fallacious in finance. Well, guess what? The ultimate con, derivatives by the trillions, has been played, the money is draining out of the world markets and IT IS NOT COMING BACK. The game is over. The playas know it even as they bilk the American taxpayers for billions more in executive bonuses and bailouts. Oh sure, some of them will play too long and get caught and hanged when the sheeple wake up, but they are being conned too, believing that their donations and lobbying efforts with government officials will buy them protection. It will, until it won't. When America wakes up, everything will be ripped to shreds in an orgy of destruction. No one will be able to stop it. Not guns, not martial law, not even the military.

So goes the death of the consumer economy, an absurd model that should never have been born. An economy is based on production and the trade of goods and services. How can eternal consumption ever be the basis of a nations wealth? It will work until the credit system can bear no more. Enter, stage right, the current era and the collapse of credit.

No replacement economy for this absurd consumerist economy is on deck. No plan is being made for the next economy. Our government flails in great incompetence, always in reaction, never in action. The con game goes on, everyone, even those conned, hoping it will never stop. But the inexorable law of credit and Ponzi financing are in play now. The consumer is broke and has no way to generate wealth. Credit is drying up. America has nothing to trade and stays afloat temporarily because the world believes the dollar must have value as their own currencies implode. Demand for the dollar is unprecedented but the emperor has no clothes. There is no longer any underlying value to FRN's. There is only the memory, the memory of the grand and golden days when the dollar ruled the world. When the world realizes that the historical dollar no longer exists and they are trading their worthless paper for our now worthless paper, the dollar will collapse.

At that point the American economy will collapse. In theory, commerce may come to a complete standstill since the currency has no value. It only represents an absurd amount of debt. With no value left in the country and most of our manufacturing capacity sent overseas, no one will loan us anything to help us return to the production economy. America will be a hissing to the world: the dollar collapse will also rob world economies of great wealth, impoverishing millions if not billions. Any misery or suffering we endure will be met with 'Serves you right.'

We, who for the most part only know how to consume goods and credit, must now bootstrap ourselves into a completely new way of life. A way of life undefined by any but a few apocalyptic authors. A way of life foreign to all of our institutions and most of our citizenry.

The entire population of the United States of America is about to become shell shocked by the severity of this bootstrapping process. The whole nation will be subjected to the same forces faced by soldiers on the front line. It's not going to be pretty. Many will go insane. Many more will turn violent. Most will try to adapt, to feel their way forward. Key utilities, such as power and water, may fail during this interim period, increasing suffering and death even more. Hunger will be a new companion for many.

Our enemies may take advantage of our discomfiture and attack or even invade us. The wrath of the world will fall upon our heads and no amount of pleading, begging, or cajoling will placate them. Their wrath must run its full course. Millions of Americans will die, directly or indirectly, during this world-wide bash America-a-thon. We will probably suffer nuclear strikes to our major cities. I only hope we can return tit-for-tat. Raiding parties to our shores may capture citizens and sell or keep them as slaves. No inhumanity will be spared Americans. The darkest days of history will be dredged for ways to humiliate, kill, and torture Americans.

The con of Wall Street is leading us to our soon destruction. It will not end until we have battled back to the America of our forefathers. The blood that will flow and the suffering endured will be of an epic scale. The Americans that survive will be the hardiest in the world. We will be like a nation of Navy Seals or Army Rangers or Marines. Anyone with a constitution weaker than these will perish.

We will rebuild but to a new blueprint. Wall Street will be banished forever. Usury will be a swear word. Banking will not exist. Government will be all about service and not about power. Anyone who shows anything less than the greatest humility as a public official will be shot, and shot again. Our eyes will be like flinty steel and our jaws firmly set. We will be all about personal responsibility. Righteousness, honesty, and integrity will be valued once more. We will be men and women of our word as we once were.

I only hope when the new blueprint is implemented, that clauses be added, as many as it takes, to make sure this never happens again. Great tomes will be written on the evil of usury and the glory of the paths of truth will be sung in every house. Everyone will be a guardian of the new blueprint and so it must be, ever watchful, that the insidious evil of 'something for nothing' does not arise for eternity in the blasted and cratered landscape of the reborn America.

Friday, November 7, 2008

Minnesota Update: Coleman's Lead Narrows...100 votes "located"

Conveniently, 100 votes for Democratic challenger Al Franken were found in the Minnesota senate race.

According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, "Just as Secretary of State Mark Ritchie was explaining to reporters the recount process in one of the narrowest elections in Minnesota history, an aide rushed in with news: Pine County's Partridge Township had revised its vote total upward -- another 100 votes for Democratic candidate Al Franken, putting him within .011 percentage points of Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman."

Here's your liberal newspaper making excuses: "The reason for the change? Exhausted county officials had accidentally entered 24 for Franken instead of 124 when the county's final votes were tallied at 5:25 Wednesday morning."

Amazing...simply amazing.

Pine County is situated approximately 50 miles north of the Twin Cities. Are there even 100 people in Pine County?

A couple of notes: 1.) the recount hasn't even started yet; 2.) that a abusive, snarky comedian who helped tank Air America could be within a hair's breadth of a U.S Senate seat is truly frightening.

What this further validates is that the 2008 election, on a national, state, and local was a referendum against Republicans. Whether fair or not, the voters chose to "kick the bums" as I read in an article yesterday.

No thanks to corrupt, liberal mainstream manipulation, the Republicans were painted as enablers of greed, graft, and corruption, as well as the architects of the subprime housing meltdown, and the near-certain economic recession.

As for Coleman, I'm seriously worried. If 100 votes can magically appear...what are the odds he retains his seat.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Minnesota Update: Coleman claims victory/the Democrats will find some "uncounted" votes somewhere/where's ACORN when you need them

Despite holding a 725 vote edge to Democratic challenger Al Franken, incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman today proclaimed victory in a tight, hotly-contested and vitriolic race, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.
Sen. Norm Coleman late this morning declared victory for a second term from Minnesota, even as the wheels are churning toward an automatic recount of the nearly 3 million votes cast in his battle with Democrat Al Franken.
As a Minnesotan and a Republican, I don't know what was worse, an Obama presidency, or a Franken senatorial seat.

Actually, I thought of something worse than either: both winning.

As I'm sure most of you are, I'm absolutely sick of the endless political attack ads aired on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. In this case, I couldn't handle watching another Franken ad concocting a story about "Big Oil," "Wall Street Special Interests," or the "Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich."

Coleman's problem, as with other conservatives, is that this election was essentially a referendum AGAINST Republicans. The seeds were planted in the 2006 congressional races, when Democrats usurped Republican power, and ultimately carried them to a near liberal supermajority in executive and legislative branches.

It's been so bad for Republicans that an idiot, abusive, temperamental comedian (Franken) nearly unseated a fairly popular incumbent (Coleman).

Ultimately what worries me is that as one Star Tribune reader stated, "Why do I have a feeling the the Dems will "find" a couple of mis-placed boxes of uncounted ballots in the next day or two?"

If so, I'm sure ACORN is involved.

Yet, does it surprise you that Minnesota voters nearly approved the aforementioned angry comedian? After all, we did have an ex-professional wrestler as a governor.

The Day After: Keep standing up for what we believe is right

Well, we on the Right were hit by a two-ton Mack truck last night, in the form of a new Democratic president, and a near-filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. Obviously, there are some silver linings: Democrats did NOT pick up enough Senate seats to ensure the ultimate nightmare: a TRUE liberal supermajority. Furthermore, Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman, despite a mandatory recount, is looking increasingly like he has staved off defeat from Democratic challenger Al Franken.

Over the past eight years, we've endured endless fabrication after fabrication from liberal fuckheads that Bush lied, he usurped the Constitution, he spied on all of us, he gave tax cuts to the rich. Those lies, propagated through a corrupt liberal mainstream media, ushered in a new era of Liberal power. The American populace was inundated with lie and lie from a medium that was clearly in the tank for Obama.

With that said, what happens, for example, our energy bills skyrocket due to cap and trade legislation? You can't blame the Republicans. What happens when wave after wave of suicide bomber hits targets inside the United States due to Obama capitulating in the war on terror? What happens when average Americans lose their job and are forced to pay higher taxes, because Obama instituted an inane economic policy that increased taxes on the rich/entrepreneurial class. The upper class, when forced to reduce emissions in their businesses and pay higher taxes, must lay off employees: the middle class.

Are we STILL going to blame Republicans?

Not this time. It's time to regroup, and usher in a new era of our own; one that includes fiscal and social conservatives. Furthermore, as countless conservative authors and pundits have reiterated, it's to toss out the trash: existing Republican leadership that was corrupt and facilitated a bereftness in the economy.

Moreover, we on the Right cannot tolerate sex scandals, bribery, fraud, misuse of funds, or special interests. To borrow a trite, overused cliche: if we're going to talk the talk, let's walk the walk.

We on the Right have to close ranks and clean up our act; we need to present a united front against Obama. We have to stand up for what we believe is right.

I'm hoping this loss will put steel in backbones and strengthen our resolve.

I have a feeling the Democrat leadership, under the auspices of Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, are going to make it quite easy for us.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

In Light of Democratic Win, a Ray of Hope

Ugh...we stand on the verge of, as Townhall.com's Dennis Prager stated today, a radical transformation to this country. As a white, conservative, Christian, I brace for an apoplectic seizure from the Left, as they look to enact a pound of flesh from those of us who supported the "Bush Tax Cuts for the rich" and other Bush-measures over the past eight years.

I am, as many conservatives are, disheartened by the prospects of the most liberal President coupled with smashing Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate.

Yet, do not despair, my friends.

I hereby predict that Obama will destroy every facet of this country that the pendulum will start to swing BACK to the center-right in time for the 2010 elections.

Unfortunately, I am despondent primarily because the American voting segment was utterly duped by 1.) the corrupt, liberal mainstream media; 2.) and the non-efforts from John McCain to educate the aforementioned populace on Obama's record.

It was a half-hearted effort a best to target Obama's absurd tax policies, his radical associations, his over-the-top liberal outlooks on abortion, gay marriage, energy, terrorism, etc. On top of that, Obama managed to indoctrinate a large swatch of young people, disenfranchised independents and Republicans, and Democratic basists with his "hope and change" rhetoric.

Nevermind that the only hope and change is going to occur to the Leftist wing nuts that would love to see this country become an extension of Western Europe.

Most of the country does NOT want to see the radical transformations Obama has in store for us, whether it's social-justice taught in our schools, the shoving of progressive values down our collective throats, the mass illegal immigration that will occur south of our borders (including OTM's), increased terror attacks, loss of jobs to due to inane cap-and-trade laws (based on complete scientific fabrications), etc.

And when the collective psyche of the American public takes a nose-dive, by all means, you can tell those snarky liberal bastards, "I told you so."

Thursday, October 30, 2008

The Obama Tax Plan: People need to truly digest what this man is saying

Charlton Heston, in his role as time traveler Taylor in the Planet of the Apes, utters to no one, "It's a mad house...a MAD HOUSE!!!"

Well, the economic house under a Obama presidency will be a mad one. Note that he wants us to revert back to Clinton-era taxes: 54% ALONE to the federal government. Couple that with Americans who do not pay taxes; 40% by some accounts, and we're giving them a refund.

On top of that, we've Obama and Joe Biden waver when it comes to which income brackets will pay through the nose in taxes. A year ago, we heard Obama say that he won't tax anyone making less than $1 million; six months ago, it was $500 thousand. Lately, we've heard him refine those numbers to anywhere between $200 thousand and $250 thousand. Then, FINALLY, we heard the Mr. Smirk, Biden, state that no one making less than $150 thousand will see their taxes increased.

Can you say DISASTER?

In a recent FOX News Dynamic Poll, 81% of Americans think that they should pay NO MORE than 30% of their income to taxes. Yet, by a 51%-39% margin, people trust Obama to fix the economy.


We cannot trust the numbers.

We've heard mistruths uttered from the Democrats on an endless basis. We've heard that Bush gave the rich tax truths while hurting the middle class. That is a complete fabrication. Note the following from David Limbaugh:
How can these class-warfare demagogues sleep at night saying the rich don't pay their fair share when 2006 official figures show the top 1 percent of income earners pay 40 percent of the income taxes; the top 5 percent pay 60 percent; the top 10 percent pay 71 percent; the top 25 percent, 86 percent; and the top 50 percent, 97 percent? Just how much would the wealthy have to pay for it to be fair?
Furthermore, when increase taxes on the rich, you punish the middle and lower classes. Why you ask? Because the rich are the entrepreneurial class; they invest money in businesses. These investments usually come in the form of JOBS...jobs for people in the middle and lower classes.

If this entrepreneurial class does NOT invest money, what will happen to the jobs? They'll disappear. That's common sense, something Obama and his cultists REFUSE to understand.

Moreover, what the Obama crowd cannot understand is that if you LOWER taxes, you create revenue. Would Americans rather have a JOB or have some $500 rebate check. Almost certainly under an Obama presidency, you cannot have both.

Wake up people; this man is the worst thing that can happen to this country. Are you listening to what

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Liberals and their Democratic Enablers: INTENTIONALLY trying to destroy this country?

Consider this the "darkest before the dawn" edition.

I've read a slew of soothsayer articles from the likes of David Limbaugh, Pat Buchanon, etc, forecasting Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama's first 100 days as President would entail, coupled with an near-certain Democratic increase in Congress.

The prognostications are truly scary for those of us on the Right, whether's it's the "wealth redistribution," repeal of Marriage Defense Act, enactment of Freedom of Choice Act, increased SHOVING of progressive values down our throat, open borders, etc.

It's pretty clear that an Obama presidency and filibuster-proof Democratic Congress could have drastic consequences for this country; couple that with the potential for Obama to fill anywhere from three to four vacant Supreme Court spots, and the possibilities are truly frightening.

Here's what Buchanon portends in an Obama presidency and filibuster proof Congress:

What does the triumvirate of Obama-Pelosi-Reid offer?

Rep. Barney Frank is calling for new tax hikes on the most successful and a 25 percent across-the-board slash in national defense. Sen. John Kerry is talking up new and massive federal spending, a la FDR's New Deal. Specifically, we can almost surely expect:

-- Swift amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and a drive to make them citizens and register them, as in the Bill Clinton years. This will mean that Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona will soon move out of reach for GOP presidential candidates, as has California.

-- Border security will go on the backburner, and America will have a virtual open border with a Mexico of 110 million.

-- Taxes will be raised on the top 5 percent of wage-earners, who now carry 60 percent of the U.S. income tax burden, and tens of millions of checks will be sent out to the 40 percent of wage-earners who pay no federal income tax. Like the man said, redistribute the wealth, spread it around.

-- Social Security taxes will be raised on the most successful among us, and capital gains taxes will be raised from 15 percent to 20 percent. The Bush tax cuts will be repealed, and death taxes reimposed.

-- Two or three more liberal activists of the Ruth Bader Ginsberg-John Paul Stevens stripe will be named to the Supreme Court. U.S. district and appellate courts will be stacked with "progressives."

-- Special protections for homosexuals will be written into all civil rights laws, and gays and lesbians in the military will be invited to come out of the closet. "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dead.

-- The homosexual marriages that state judges have forced California, Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize, an Obama Congress or Obama court will require all 50 states to recognize.

-- A "Freedom of Choice Act" nullifying all state restrictions on abortions will be enacted. America will become the most pro-abortion nation on earth.

-- Affirmative action -- hiring and promotions based on race, sex and sexual orientation until specified quotas are reached -- will be rigorously enforced throughout the U.S. government and private sector.

-- Universal health insurance will be enacted, covering legal and illegal immigrants, providing another powerful magnet for the world to come to America, if necessary by breaching her borders.

-- A federal bailout of states and municipalities to keep state and local governments spending up could come in December or early next year.

-- The first trillion-dollar deficit will be run in the first year of an Obama presidency. It will be the first of many.

As a Christian Conservative, I'm almost preparing myself to worship my God in secret and essentially go "underground."

The BRIGHT side, contrary to what conservative pundits like Michael Medved believe, is that we WILL get so disgusted with the miserable circumstances under a blanket Democratic leadership that we WILL throw these disgusting sons of bitches OUT of office.

After some deliberation and reading from the authors like the aforementioned Limbaugh and Buchanon, and I ponder openly: are the liberals attempting to destroy this country? I mean, they HAVE to know what the potential consequences would be of there actions, right? They can't be THAT stupid...

Can they?

Yesterday's Syrian Raid will be a thing of the past in an Obama presidency

Oh how soon we forget.

According to media sources, a senior Al Qaeda leader was killed by a U.S. forces in Syria.

Naturally, Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama and his crew are furious. That shouldn't be surprising.

We've seen tepid, emasculated responses from Democratic presidents in the past (see: Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton), so it should come as no surprise that 1.) Obama would rather engage terrorist fomenters in "dialogue;" 2.) this is a portent of an Obama foreign policy.

So what does this mean?

We'll be back to square one with Obama; we'll be relegated to pre-Bush days when the previous administration allowed ourselves to bullied by Islamic fundamentalists and when forced to retaliate, offered nothing more than a token military gesture.

Furthermore, in an Obama presidency where dialogue in the only option, terrorist groups like Al Qaeda will be allowed to reconstitute, once again becoming a threat not only in the Middle East, but to our national security.


We're weakening ourselves again. This is like a bad dream, replayed over and over again. We've been down this road before under Bill Clinton, where a liberal administration consternated over political and legal ramifications of staving off the terrorist threat. We're already experienced the feeling of retreating, with our tail between our legs, and the feeling of not hitting back HARD against aggression and violence against Americans and its interests.

Couple that with the near-certainty of Obama closing Guantanamo Bay and stopping military tribunals against terrorists, as well as the eradication of the Patriot Act; I think we can guarantee that we'll see attacks increase.

Say what you will about George Bush, but he kept us safe. Terrorists, domestic and international, were cut off at the pass. They weren't allowed to develop nor implement their plots.

Massachusetts: Judges and ACLU at it again

In the perverse world of the liberal, criminals are canonized; victims are ostracized.

It's bizarro world in liberal land, where you say goodbye upon greeting, and hello upon leaving.

According to AM 1280 the Patriot, a Massachusetts judge has "has ruled that parts of Missouri's new law restricting registered sex offenders' actions on Halloween night are unenforceable, saying the law lacked clarity and could cause confusion for sex offenders and those charged with enforcing it."
After hearing arguments in a case brought by four sex offenders, U.S. District Judge Carol Jackson on Monday granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of some parts of the law.

(O)ther aspects of the statute were too broad and raise questions, the judge said.

For example, Jackson said, may a sex offender have contact with his or her own children on Halloween? Passing out candy is clearly prohibited, but what else constitutes Halloween-related contact? And if a sex offender planned to be out of town on Halloween, he or she would not technically be "inside the home" as the law requires, Jackson pointed out.

The law allows sex offenders to leave home on Halloween night if there is "just cause" such as work or an emergency, but Jackson criticized the measure for failing to define the term more clearly.

Such vagueness would cause confusion among sex offenders, police and prosecutors, she said.
First, we have an activist judge defying common sense and the welfare of the general public. In her own odd interpretation, she's essentially given sex offenders carte blanche to do whatever they want on Halloween.

Second, the ACLU has naturally interjected itself into the fray; once again siding with the perpetrator rather than the criminal:
The injunction stemmed from a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri. Attorney Dave Nelson called the law's requirements a "scarlet letter" for sex offenders. He said the statute also results in additional punishment by requiring what amounts to "house arrest" one day each year.
Too bad. We're talking sex offenders that, if allowed, would commit indescribable actions towards youngsters if allowed. Yet, "civil liberty" groups like ACLU fight for their rights. What rights do they possess? These people have committed arguably some of the most egregious acts in judicial history, and instead of focusing concern on the potential victim, the ACLU is instead defending the criminal.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Further blatant MSM bias: LA Times suppresses Obama's Khalidi bash tape

Andrew McCarthy, courtesy of the National Review, provides analysis of yet another blatant attempt from the corrupt, liberal mainstream media to deliberately suppress negative press for "Dear Leader."

In case you haven't noticed, "Dear Leader" is term that is synonymous with "The Chosen One," "The One," "The Messiah," "The Obamessiah," etc. The aforementioned glowing nicknames are those bestowed on Democratic presidential candidate, Barry Soetoro/Dunham, Obama.

But one can't be surprised that the mainstream media has refused to publish a potentially damaging story to said Dear Leader. Whether it's Obama and Infanticide, his support for domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, his marination in Jeremiah Wright's hate, his welfare redistribution, his Gods and Guns remark, the embarrassing institution known as the Mainstream Media, would rather focus on, as McCarthy states in his article, Sarah Palin's wardrobe, Joe the Plumber's money problems, or an absolutely isolated case of some idiot stealing an Obama sign from someone's front lawn.

It's almost laughable how "in-the-bag" the MSM is in for Obama. But yet it's not funny, because the very future of our country is as stack. Couple the possibility of elected the most liberal Democrat in presidential history with the notion of a filibuster proof Democratic majority in Congress, and the Marxist possibilities exist.

I stated this morning that with the way so many Americans have greedily lapped up his charismatic, quixotic message, Obama is more geared to be a cult leader or dictator.

I digress; the latest MSM "non-story" comes courtesy of the Los Angeles Times: "Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?"

Again, if this was someone on the Right lavishing praise for Eric Rudolph, would the corrupt leftist MSM even bat an eye at running story on every front page, and opening segment of the nightly news?

Not bloody likely.

With Obama, it should be no surprise he cavorts with terrorists; he's right at time associating with people like Khalidi and Ayers.

Here's the complete story:
The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama’s Khalidi Bash Tape
Obama, Ayers, and PLO supporters toast Edward Said’s successor, but the press doesn’t think it’s quite as newsworthy as Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor ... who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.

Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.

Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat? Is there any chance, if the Times was the least bit reluctant about publishing (remember, we’re pretending here), that the rest of the mainstream media (y’know, the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday-party toast) would not be screaming for the release of the tape?

Do we really have to ask?

So now, let’s leave thought experiments and return to reality: Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?

At the time Khalidi, a PLO adviser turned University of Chicago professor, was headed east to Columbia. There he would take over the University’s Middle East-studies program (which he has since maintained as a bubbling cauldron of anti-Semitism) and assume the professorship endowed in honor of Edward Sayyid, another notorious terror apologist.

The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor. It was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat’s press agency.

Is there just a teeny-weenie chance that this was an evening of Israel-bashing Obama would find very difficult to explain? Could it be that the Times, a pillar of the Obamedia, is covering for its guy?

Gateway Pundit reports that the Times has the videotape but is suppressing it.

Back in April, the Times published a gentle story about the fete. Reporter Peter Wallsten avoided, for example, any mention of the inconvenient fact that the revelers included Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife and fellow Weatherman terrorist. These self-professed revolutionary Leftists are friendly with both Obama and Khalidi — indeed, researcher Stanley Kurtz has noted that Ayers and Khalidi were “best friends.” (And — small world! — it turns out that the Obamas are extremely close to the Khalidis, who have reportedly babysat the Obama children.)

Nor did the Times report the party was thrown by AAAN. Wallsten does tell us that the AAAN received grants from the Leftist Woods Fund when Obama was on its board — but, besides understating the amount (it was $75,000, not $40,000), the Times mentions neither that Ayers was also on the Woods board at the time nor that AAAN is rabidly anti-Israel. (Though the organization regards Israel as illegitimate and has sought to justify Palestinian terrorism, Wallsten describes the AAAN as “a social service group.”)

Perhaps even more inconveniently, the Times also let slip that it had obtained a videotape of the party.

Wallsten’s story is worth excerpting at length (italics are mine):

It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."...

[T]he warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than … his opponents for the White House....

At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

Though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis' daughter.

In interviews with The Times, Khalidi declined to discuss specifics of private talks over the years with Obama. He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel — a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago's large Arab American community was important for winning local elections.

So why is the Times sitting on the videotape of the Khalidi festivities? Given Obama's (preposterous) claims that he didn’t know Ayers that well and was unfamiliar with Ayers’s views, why didn't the Times report that Ayers and Dohrn were at the bash? Was it not worth mentioning the remarkable coincidence that both Obama and Ayers — the “education reform” allies who barely know each other … except to the extent they together doled out tens of millions of dollars to Leftist agitators, attacked the criminal justice system, and raved about each others books — just happen to be intimate friends of the same anti-American Israel-basher? (Despite having watched the videotape, Wallsten told Gateway Pundit he “did not know” whether Ayers was there.)

Why won’t the Times tell us what was said in the various Khalidi testimonials? On that score, Ayers and Dohrn have always had characteristically noxious views on the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. And, true to form, they have always been quite open about them. There is no reason to believe those views have ever changed. Here, for example, is what they had to say in Prairie Fire, the Weather Underground’s 1974 Communist manifesto (emphasis in original):

Palestinian independence is opposed with reactionary schemes by Jordan, completely opposed with military terror by Israel, and manipulated by the U.S. The U.S.-sponsored notion of stability and status-quo in the Mideast is an attempt to preserve U.S. imperialist control of oil, using zionist power as the cat's paw. The Mideast has become a world focus of struggles over oil resources and control of strategic sea and air routes. Yet the Palestinian struggle is at the heart of other conflicts in the Mideast. Only the Palestinians can determine the solution which reflects the aspirations of the Palestinian people. No "settlements" in the Mideast which exclude the Palestinians will resolve the conflict. Palestinian liberation will not be suppressed.

The U.S. people have been seriously deceived about the Palestinians and Israel. This calls for a campaign to educate and focus attention on the true situation: teach-ins, debates, and open clear support for Palestinian liberation; reading about the Palestinian movement—The Disinherited by Fawaz Turki, Enemy of the Sun; opposing U.S. aid to Israel. Our silence or acceptance of pro-zionist policy is a form of complicity with U.S.-backed aggression and terror, and a betrayal of internationalism.




Barack Obama wouldn’t possibly let something like that pass without a spirited defense of the Israel he tells us he so staunchly supports … would he? I guess to answer that question, we’d have to know what was on the tape.

But who has time for such trifles? After all, isn’t Diana Vreeland about to critique Sarah Palin’s sartorial splendor?

National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy chairs the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies’s Center for Law & Counterterrorism and is the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books 2008).

An Obama Presidency: our "Barabbas" moment

That's where we as a nation have arrived. The masses have lustily drank the kool-aid, ignoring every warning and red flag.

We're on the cusp of an "Obama Nation." We've ignored Joe the Plumber, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and other episodes from this demented reality show.

After watching a recent Obama rally, I was reminded of a scene in "The Passion of the Christ," where Pontius Pilate when faced with angry mob, asks whom he release from custody, Jesus of Nazareth or Barabbas. According to various books of the Bible, "the crowd chose Barabbas to be released and Jesus of Nazareth to be crucified. A passage found only in the Gospel of Matthew[2] has the crowd saying, 'Let his blood be upon us and upon our children.'"

That seems to be where we are with a potential Obama presidency. The populace has so taken to Obama's "hope and change" rhetoric, that we're completely blind to the man's shortcoming, his associations, and his socialist message. We're essentially giving common sense and rationality a giant collective middle finger.

"Let his blood be upon us and upon our children."

For the "proverbial" bloodshed will be great after Obama passes draconian tax measures, enacts the Freedom of Choice Act, ushers in the Fairness Doctrine, enforce wealth redistribution, repeals the Marriage Defense Act, and pushes Congress to pass cap-and-trade environmental laws.

As Mark Levin from the National Review states, "I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places."

Is this man running for the office of Presidency of the United States, cult leader, or dictator? Where is the humility that other presidents before him have demonstrated? Through so many of his actions, Obama has displayed an air of superiority to working class people.
There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.
So what's in store for us under an Obama presidency? Levin adds the following:
Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good. The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.
We've fallen victim to (H)is quixotic message. It sounds so alluring, so intoxicating. So much so that we've ignored the blinding warning lights. Let us usher in a socialist era, and the let the blood be upon our children.

For it will be generations that suffer from an Obama nation.

Townhall's Burt Prelutsky offers the same questions:
Why are so many Americans so eager to accept that corporations are the enemy when corporations not only provide employment, but pay dividends to tens of millions of middle-class Americans either directly or through their pension funds? Why are the same folks who are waging war on corporate America so reluctant to utter even an unkind word about Islamic terrorism? I realize that a lot of people get upset when CEOs get paid a ton of a money, particularly when it comes in the form of a golden parachute. But why don’t they get equally upset when a movie actor who’s generally a liberal gets paid $20 million to star in a movie that tanks?

Vote NO on Minnesota Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment

Here in the Democratic stronghold of Minnesota, we voters are presented with a slew of interesting senatorial races and initiatives, notably the Minnesota Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Act.

According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, "The current general sales and use tax rate is 6.5%. Sales tax revenue is deposited in the state General Fund. If the ballot question passes, it would increase the general sales and use tax rate by three-eighths of one percentage point (0.375%) to 6.875%."

We're witnessing these sorts of environmental initiatives dictate dominate our lives, when things like the economy, national security, energy, border security, social security, health insurance, supersede these trivial environmental matters. The environmentalists, if given tacit approval, will tax us to death 1.) to impose these draconian measures; 2.) send us, economically and developmentally, back to the Stone Age; 3.) lower our productivity (and thus our GDP) through bogus global warming claims.

Furthermore, as Paul Gilje, coordinator of the Civic Cause think-thank states, enacting this store of legislation could open a proverbial pandora's box: "Gilje likes the outdoors, the environment, and the arts but doesn't like the precedent. He said a vote for the amendment would open the door to California-style government by referendum.

'What we've got to do is get the legislators to remain on the hook for their decisions,' he said. 'They've got to make the decisions, rather than passing them off on you and me.'"

Is this worth a constitutional amendment? Hell no. Furthermore, it typifies the brazen arrogance of the environmentalists when, as the WCCO story above reports, it will "only" cost us a dollar a week. That's $52 a week, perhaps to some, a mere pittance.

Moreover, the wording of the act itself is ambiguous. It seems to create a slush fund of sorts; how will this money be spent? Where will the proceeds of the tax itself be used?

Finally, we've heard, ad nauseum, that Republicans like Norm Coleman, Erik Paulsen, and Michelle Bachmann, have take large sums of money from lobbyists (big oil, Wall Street, etc.). But what about those that have lobbied FOR this bill? These same elected officials (*cough* Democrat) have decided to heed to special interest groups that keep them in power and have affectively endorsed a misleading campaign that is telling people if they vote YES they will be helping to fund clean up of our water.

This is NOT the economic climate to be enacting these sorts of measures.

Personally, I can think of several other things that I can use the $52 for.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Liberal Lies: the Bush Tax Cuts

It's a daily occurrence to open up the newspapers, turn on the news, watch a campaign ad and hear some bonehead Democrat uttering inane references to "big oil" and "disastrous Bush tax cuts." Subsequently, said bonehead Democrat impugns either Republican colleague or opponent in a political office with the above mentioned issues.

The Democrats have excelled at propagating lies and turning them against the Republicans. Whether it's the subprime housing market (Republican Wall Street vs. Democrats/liberals forcing banks to make bank loans) or high gas prices (billions of dollars in oil company profits vs. Economics 101: SUPPLY and DEMAND and high taxes against the oil companies), the Democrats have issued inane fabrication after fabrication.

What's further maddening is that Republicans have rarely uttered a rebuttal, or attempted to truly educate the public on these hot buttons. Moreover, the corrupt liberal mainstream media has not fact-checked any of these Democrat-issued lies; instead they've enabled the mistruths through the various mediums.

Yesterday, I discussed the lies of "big oil," primarily, propagated by idiots like Stuart Smalley, er, Al Franken against incumbent Minnesota Senator, Republican Norm Coleman. In a recent TV campaign ad, Franken smugly reminds the viewing public that Coleman took campaign contributions from "big oil" lobbyists. Nevermind that his colleagues, such as Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and "The One" Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama took hundreds of thousands of dollars from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to avert their eyes to the then-portending housing crisis, or that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has enjoyed hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from various alternative energy providers (saving the planet, my ass).

The point here, people, is that mistruths and outright lies are being uttered ad nauseum by the Left. Today, I want to focus on the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts." We've heard "The One," Obama, in his hope and change rhetoric, gain support by lying about the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts." Personally in Minnesota, I've seen/heard a handful of ads from Smalley, er, Franken, indicting Coleman for supporting the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts."

Furthermore, we're seen/heard the same Democrats proclaim that these tax cuts have benefited the rich while handicapping the poor. Note the following from columnist David Limbaugh:
(I)t is an objective fact that Bush gave greater percentage cuts to lower-income earners than to the wealthy.

How can these class-warfare demagogues sleep at night saying the rich don't pay their fair share when 2006 official figures show the top 1 percent of income earners pay 40 percent of the income taxes; the top 5 percent pay 60 percent; the top 10 percent pay 71 percent; the top 25 percent, 86 percent; and the top 50 percent, 97 percent? Just how much would the wealthy have to pay for it to be fair?

The more the wealthy pay the more actual dollars they will retain when there are marginal rate cuts, even when the rates of lower-income earners are cut more.
Let's be candid here people; the economy isn't in the shape it's in because of the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts." True, the Bush Administration increased spending significantly, borrowing money from overseas investors; the dollar is weak, and we're engaged in two wars. The problem is NOT the tax cuts, instead it's the spending. Note the following from John Hawkins:
Liberals regularly claim that revenue from tax cuts must be "made up" somehow, which ignores the fact that government revenue usually goes up after tax cuts.

That was certainly the case after the Bush, Kennedy, and Reagan tax cuts, which makes perfect sense if you understand the Laffer Curve.

There are lots of intelligent arguments that you can make about taxes. You can argue that tax raises may also increase revenue, that tax cuts may reduce the size of the future increase in revenue the government will receive, or that we could eventually cut taxes so dramatically that they would no longer yield revenue increases, but clearly the last few major tax cuts we've had have produced increases in federal revenue, not decreases.

We've also heard "The One" Obama promise to cut taxes for 95% of American people; nevermind that 30-40% of Americans do NOT pay taxes. What that means is that he's going to be giving refund checks to people who do not pay taxes. How's he going to do that? By taxing the rich, and "spreading the wealth."

That's called socialism.

You don't do that in a sinking economy unless you want the economy to sink even further. Theoretically, you CUT taxes, especially capital gains taxes and those on businesses. I'm sorry you have to hear this, liberal boneheads, but the upper class invest; they're entreprenurial opportunities end up increasing jobs and OPPORTUNITIES for Americans. You raise taxes on the rich, they cut back on investment and job creation.

Moreover, per the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts, the economy actually grows and accumulates more revenue.

In his latest column, Charles Wheeler explains why cutting taxes absolutely, positively, cannot lead to more revenue flowing into the treasury as a result of the economy being stimulated:

"Economist Arthur Laffer made a very interesting supposition: If tax rates are high enough, then cutting taxes might actually generate more revenue for the government, or at least pay for themselves. (In one of life's great coincidences, he first sketched a graph of this idea on Dick Cheney's cocktail napkin.) If the government cuts taxes, then Uncle Sam gets a smaller cut of all economic activity -- but reducing taxes also generates new economic activity. Laffer reasoned that, under some circumstances, a tax cut would stimulate so much new economic activity that the government would end up with more in its coffers -- by taking a smaller slice of a much larger pie.

...Think about a simple numerical example: Assume you've got a $10 trillion economy and an average tax rate of 30 percent. So the government takes $3 trillion.

Let's cut the average tax rate to 25 percent and, for the sake of example, assume that it generates $1 trillion in new economic growth (a Herculean assumption, by the way). So now, what does Uncle Sam get? One quarter of $11 trillion is only $2.75 trillion. The economy grows, government revenues shrink.

That's basically what happened with the large Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts, both of which were followed by large budget deficits. Yes, spending has a lot to do with that, but the bottom line is unequivocal: In both cases, government revenue was lower than it would have been without the tax cuts.

Read the following; this article sums up the BENEFITS of lowering taxes; isn't it amazing how STUPID liberals actually are?

There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and “rich” taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden – a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.

Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to “soak the rich,” the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons.

1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

Harmful Spending & Complexity
Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Barry Obama hypocrisy on foreign policy

Notice that when the RNC spends $150 thousand bucks to refurbish Sarah Palin's wardrobe, the corrupt liberal mainstream media jumps all over the story, yet refuses to mention that Obama thugs are attacking McCain supporters, or that his cronies in states nationwide are trying their damndest to quell anti-Obama dissent?

Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds. They bitched and moaned that their civil liberties were being stolen when President Bush pushed to pass the Patriot Act and also institute warrantless wiretapping, to TRULY protect us. Yet, Democrats attempt to sift through your garbage (in the name of "recycling"), to enact the Fairness Doctrine, or ban anti-gay/Islamic terrorist speech, truly stealing our first amendments.

The dumb fuckers on the Left, including the MSM, are nowhere to be found. Instead they're all sipping their lattes, driving their Volvos, and castigating Christians.

Just another day in a soon-to-be Obama nation.

Speaking of liberal hypocrisy, try this one on for size. Undoubtedly, you've heard smug liberals proclaim that invading Iraq (in 2003) was illegal and that we had no business here. In one of the recent presidential debates, Democratic candidate Obama stated the following:

"When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us."

But he had stated in 2007, "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there."

Furthermore, it was okay in the late 1990's for President Clinton to interject American military forces in Serbia to halt a genocide occurring against Bosnian Muslims?

How the hell is Iraq or Darfur ANY different? All three have or would be done to prevent or halt genocide.

The answer is that it's not different; it's just the matter of liberals, so consumed with their of Bush, Christianity and Conservatism, to concoct stories, courtesy of the aforementioned corrupt liberal MSM.

Message to Republicans; Refute Democratic Lies

If I were a Republican office, I think it would be time to educate the masses.

Of course you can wish in one hand and shit in the other, but that's another story.

Seriously, the Democrats, in elections at every level across the country, are propagating absolute untruths about their Republican counterparts.

Big Oil
Wall Street
Iraq War

In the ad below, Minnesota Democratic Senate nominee, Al Franken, attacks incumbent Republican Norm Coleman on his ties to "Big Oil" and the money he's received from oil lobbyists. The "politics," for lack of a better word, of lobbying are complex, but let it be known that ALL candidates except campaign contributions from lobbyist. For example, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has accepted HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars from lobbyists representing "Big Wind and Big Solar" (i.e. alternative energy lobbyists) while Democrats like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama accepted HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Regarding Big Oil, allow me to educate the masses once more on the lies behind "oil profits," as perpetuated by Democrats. Note the following from columnist John Hawkins:
Unsurprisingly, given the outrageously high cost of gas and the Left's penchant for pointing the fickle finger of blame at big corporations, we've heard a lot about how big oil is gouging consumers.

However, when you take a look at the actual numbers in California, for example, you find that the "Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits" for the oil companies make up only 8 cents per gallon of gas.

That doesn't sound like gouging, does it? But if you believe it does, what would you say about the 70 cents per gallon in taxes that's paid by California consumers? Additionally, as Karl Rove has pointed out,

(Oil companies) make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales....Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar and computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per dollar, according to the Census Bureau. Microsoft's margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales.

Sure, these oil companies are huge and therefore, even an 8.3% profit adds up to billions of dollars, but when you look at the relatively small percentage that they're putting in their pockets as compared to the humongous share that the government is raking in, it's pretty clear that it's the government, not the oil companies, that is gouging consumers.

The video below epitomizes the untruths spread by Democrats.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Man admits plotting RNC bombing

According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, a "23-year-old Michigan man has admitted to plotting to set off a homemade bomb in the tunnels near the Xcel Energy Center, hoping it would cause a power failure and prompt cancellation of the Republican National Convention."

Matthew B. DePalma of Flint, pleaded guilty in federal court in Minneapolis Tuesday to illegally possessing Molotov cocktails.

According to the plea agreement:

DePalma spent about 90 minutes at the Hennepin County Library on Aug. 18 researching recipes for homemade bombs. He bought the supplies for Molotov cocktails a few days later.

He said that if he could bomb the Xcel Center on Sept. 1, "they might call off the convention."

He added that a "power outage would say a lot" and that it was his "main purpose." DePalma also said that he would like to bomb the Xcel Energy Center on Sept. 4 so that the convention would "end with a bang."

On Aug. 22, DePalma allegedly made two jugs of a homemade napalm-like substance for use in the Molotov cocktails. He was seen traveling to a remote location in Rosemount to allegedly assemble and test the Molotov cocktails.

Depalma faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. Sentencing has yet to be scheduled.

Of course the bonehead liberals castigated the St. Paul for "heavy-handed tactics," but guess what: it saved lives and prevented damage and disruptions.

So where are the idiot Leftist activists that claimed the St. Paul police department had overstepped their bounds while committing illegal searches?

They're no where to be found.

You see, the Left, like their Islamic brethren, think they can usurp our rights by screaming the loudest, bullying, and intimidation.

Furthermore, they love to fabricate untruths, especially against Christians, hard-working folks, and men/women in uniform.

A pertinent issue, if the Left decides to get REALLY tough is this, which political party do most of the gun owners in this country constitute?

Latest charge of "racism" against McCain-Palin

Courtesy of Kansas City Star editorial page buffoon Lewis Duiguid, now calling a socialist a socialist, as Republican presidential candidate John McCain and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin have done lately, is racist.

You've got to be kidding me.

Of course the object of those remarks is one Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama, Democratic presidential candidate, and Mainstream Media golden child.

The "socialist" label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

Those freedom fighters included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led the Civil Rights Movement; W.E.B. Du Bois, who in 1909 helped found the NAACP which is still the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization; Paul Robeson, a famous singer, actor and political activist who in the 1930s became involved in national and international movements for better labor relations, peace and racial justice; and A. Philip Randolph, who founded and was the longtime head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and a leading advocate for civil rights for African Americans.

McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

Shame on McCain and Palin.

Pardon my language, but what a crock of shit. Any attack by the Right is deemed racist by liberals and propagated through the corrupt, liberal mainstream media.

Here's a newsflash for you, Lewis: Obama IS a socialist. Not only has he been affiliated with the New Deal Party, a reknowned socialist organization, but on multiple occasions he has employed the phrases "redistribution of wealth" and "spread the wealth around." Sorry, Lewis, but that is code for SOCIALISM.

It's getting sad that any dissent in this country has been stifled by the Left, notably Obama and his Thought-Police. Oh but wait, it was Bush that stole your civil rights, isn't that correct?