Joe “Court Jester” Biden is at it Again – Ladies, Get A Shotgun

Joe’s at it again. His job as Court Jester is sealed bythis video where he advises Women to get a 12 Ga. Double-Barrel Shotgun for protection. The Jester’s advise is two shots anywherewill scare a bad guy away. Watch this:

Father of Slain SEAL: Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son?

This is SICKENING. The Discraced House at 1600 PA Ave., NW, Washington, DC DID NOTHING to save and fight for our fellow citizens and Americanns. Anybody who votes for Obama after reading or hearing this, is BLIND!!!

Father of Slain SEAL: Who Made the Decision Not to Save My Son?
Posted on October 26, 2012 byCowboy Byte

Charles Woods, the father Tyrone Woods, who was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack at the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reveals details of meeting Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton at the publically broadcast memorial service for the slain Americans at Andrews Air Force Base only days after the attack. And, in a recent radio appearance, Woods publicly questions who made the call not to send in back-up forces to possibly save his son’s life, as well as the three other Americans killed in Benghazi (which includes the American ambassador to Libya).

When [Obama] came over to our little area” at Andrew Air Force Base, says Woods, “he kind of just mumbled, you know, ‘I’m sorry.’ His face was looking at me, but his eyes were looking over my shoulder like he could not look me in the eye. And it was not a sincere, ‘I’m really sorry, you know, that you’re son died,’ but it was totally insincere, more of whining type, ‘I’m sorry.’”

Woods says that shaking President Obama’s hands at his son’s memorial service was “like shaking hands with a dead fish.”

Read more: http://cowboybyte.com/14274/father-of-slain-seal-who-made-the-decision-not-to-save-my-son/#ixzz2AQFP4hyj

Is Obama ‘Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism’?

Is Obama ‘Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism’?
Posted by Yorkshire on 6 April 2012, 9:56 pm

To me, before the 2008 election it was clear as day at what BO would be. You can ask Gretchen, Eric and the Editor on the First Street Journal that I have alluded one way or another to what is in this editorial. All I needed to know about BO was a Community Activist, a Marxist lover, Revvum Wright, his Hawaiian Communist Mentor “George”, ACORN, the friends and professors in college had to be radical, Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, his illegal visit to Pakistan (which is now believed to be on a Brit Passport via Kenya), no background, no friends speaking up, school papers sealed and what he told Joe the Plumber. What more did I need???? And 95% of this was known before the election. I told this to two campaigners for BO in Oct, 2008. This information was readily known in his books. And finally, he had no executive training or experience.

Then this editorial
IBD Editorials
Is Obama ‘Dangerously Close To Totalitarianism’?
Posted 04/05/2012

http://news.investors.com/articleprint/606939/201204051834/obama-dangerously-close-to-totalitarianism.aspx

The use of the words in the editorial is prohibited by Copyright. I strongly urge the reading of this editorial.
© 2012 Investor’s Business Daily, Inc. All rights reserved. Investor’s Business Daily, IBD and CAN SLIM and their corresponding logos are registered trademarks of Investor’s Business Daily, Inc. Copyright and Trademark Notice | Privacy Statement | Terms and Conditions of Use

Truer Today Than in 1948 – …. isms

This animated production was made in 1948 concerning the creeping stealing of rights. Incrementally it has been done. It’s like a drip in a 55 gallon drum. One drop means virtually nothing, but eventually that drum will be filled and it will overflow. Or it’s been like boiling frogs. Put a few frogs in a pot of cold water and very slowly raise the heat under the pot to the point where the frogs don’t notice it, but by the time they do, they’re boiled. We’ve seen this in the last few weeks where a few words in legislation the majority did not want, is trying to strip first Amendment rights away from us. All of this has been going on since President Wilson, then pulled back, then President FDR, and half pulled back, and it seems each President has been taking a little bit here, a little bit there until we’re close to being the boiled frog. This animation is truer today than it was in 1948. “Make Mine FREEDOM”
…..ISMS

By a Fluke, This Was A Manufactured Crisis Meant to Distract From Gas, Unemployment, and BO’s Dismal Record

Dig and you find the Fluke debacle is a Manufactured Distraction (Excerpts from the Fluke Open Thread)
York
Anyone who believes all that bile is a useful idiot for the Puppet Master, Soros. Let’s face it, Fluke is a manufactured crisis to distract the Proles from reality that Unemployment is back up to 9.1% – reality 15%, gas is $4 before the election instead of afterwards, price of goods are climbing, the Muddled East is ready to go nuclear along with the want of the fools there to eliminate Israel, Syria is a powderkeg, and the world is fixated on Fluck’s Fluckin Vagina. Can we spell distraction????
ropelight says: In response
March 8, 2012 at 17:00
York, since I regard George Soros as a prominent useful idiot and one already marked for early execution following the communist takeover, it seems I failed to make myself clear.
Here’s an excerpt from Wikipedia on the topic: (indicates my added comments)

In political jargon, useful idiot is a pejorative term used to describe people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not understand, who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause. (and who face summary execution once their immediate utility has expired)
The term was originally used to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. The implication is that although the people in question naïvely thought of themselves as an ally of the Soviet Union, they were actually held in contempt and were being cynically used.
The use of the term in political discourse has since been extended to other propagandists, especially those who are seen to unwittingly support a malignant cause which they naively believe to be a force for good…
A similar term, “useful innocents”, is used in Austrian-American economist Ludwig von Mises’ “Planned Chaos”. Von Mises claims the term was used by communists for liberals that von Mises describes as “confused and misguided sympathizers”.
Modern usage: the term has been used by some commentators to describe people the commentators believe are effectively supporting Islamic terrorism by favouring an approach based on appeasement. Anthony Browne wrote in the British newspaper, The Times:
Elements within the British establishment were notoriously sympathetic to Hitler. Today the Islamists enjoy similar support. In the 1930s it was Edward VIII, aristocrats and the Daily Mail; this time it is left-wing activists, The Guardian and sections of the BBC. They may not want a global theocracy, but they are like the West’s apologists for the Soviet Union — useful idiots.
A 2010 BBC radio documentary lists among useful idiots of Joseph Stalin several prominent British writers including H. G. Wells and Doris Lessing, the Irish writer George Bernard Shaw, and the American journalist Walter Duranty and the
singer Paul Robeson.

York, I don’t disagree that Sandra Fluke is a manufactured distraction, but she’s only a mere pawn in the game insufficiently important to rate a footnote except as a current example of one of the organized Left’s standard tactics employed by useful idiots to deflect attention away from damaging revelations such as you listed above.

Yorkshire says:
March 8, 2012 at 17:09

Rope:
York, I don’t disagree that Sandra Fluke is a manufactured distraction, but she’s only a mere pawn in the game insufficiently important to rate a footnote except as a current example of one of the organized Left’s standard tactics employed by useful idiots to deflect attention away from damaging revelations such as you listed above.

Whether they are the Used, or are the User, I sorta see them in the same light. May not fit the term 100% but they were still USED

Yorkshire says:
March 8, 2012 at 18:40
Anna Nova says:
March 8, 2012 at 17:18

“By what you are also doing here, change the subject to a distraction.”

Uh-huh. So in an open thread about a young woman who was called a “slut” and a “prostitute” by Rush Limbaugh, in response to people claiming conspiracies involving George Soros and Nancy Pelosi, asking how exactly these people made Limbaugh do anything is a “distraction”?
Do you even listen to your own words these days?

What words by Limbaugh are just a reaction to the absurdidy of the whole situation. It’s what happens when you look at the 200 ft level view of things. You certainly miss the 20,000 ft view of the situation. It’s like the debate where George Stephonopolis brought up contraception in the debate. Everyone of the candidates looked at this as a question from Left Field. Why was it asked? Now we know why. It was the Libs/Socialists 20,000 ft view to lead to distraction as I pointed out above. With Pelosi involved and others, it all makes sense now. It’s easier to get the proles thinking of sex and distract them from $3.999 per gallon of gas. It also distracts from 9.1% (really near 15%) unemployment. It’s like old Rome where there was Bread, the Circus and the Gladiators to distract from the reality Rome was becoming unraveled. Well, a lot of people have caught on to the distraction. If you want to keep on talking about Rush and all those horrible people on the Right, just go ahead with your own perverted follies.

1984

Personal note, the book was published a week and a few days after I was born, FWIW. I read this in High School (mid 60′s) and saw it was alive and well in the Communist Countries. Then later on it seemed to creep into western Europe and kept moving westward to here. As far as the term “New Speak”, well call that POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. As far as eternal Wars, in one way or another it’s been all my life. When one hot spot was quelled, another showed up. If the wars didn’t include us, there were more than enough to fill in before we got activated again. During Viet-Nam, I was A+ on the Draft list. Escaped that by being in the reserves. Johnson assured us of fill-ins with the war on drugs. The Muddled East has provided non-stop action along with Africa.

The the king of all American wars since the book was written is the never ending war on terror. Now what do we have, street surveillence, traffic cams (double duty), Computerization of health records, an enemy’s list, practically strip searches at airports, this monstrosity of government healthcare to control us, recording of license plates to track our moves, about 100 federal police agencies, spying domestic and foreign, reading of emails and blogs. What’s next?

Nineteen Eighty-Four

(first published in 1949) by George Orwell is a dystopian novel about Oceania, a society ruled by the oligarchical dictatorship of the Party. Life in the Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war, pervasive government surveillance, and incessant public mind control, accomplished with a political system euphemistically named English Socialism (Ingsoc), which is administrated by a privileged Inner Party elite.

Yet they too are subordinated to the totalitarian cult of personality of Big Brother, the deified Party leader who rules with a philosophy that decries individuality and reason as thoughtcrimes; thus the people of Oceania are subordinated to a supposed collective greater good. The protagonist, Winston Smith, is a member of the Outer Party who works for the Ministry of Truth (Minitrue), which is responsible for propaganda and historical revisionism. His job is to re-write past newspaper articles so that the historical record is congruent with the current party ideology. Because of the childhood trauma of the destruction of his family — the disappearances of his parents and sister — Winston Smith secretly hates the Party, and dreams of rebellion against Big Brother.

As literary political fiction and as dystopian science-fiction, Nineteen Eighty-Four is a classic novel in content, plot, and style. Many of its terms and concepts, such as Big Brother, doublethink, thoughtcrime, Newspeak, and memory hole, have become contemporary vernacular since its publication in 1949. Moreover, Nineteen Eighty-Four popularised the adjective Orwellian, which refers to official deception, secret surveillance, and manipulation of the past in service to a totalitarian or manipulative political agenda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

Note: This started as a response to a post, but it grew.

Posted in First Street Journal

BO To Pipeline Jobs – Sell The Oil To China

BO says he wants jobs. Reality today – he doesn’t. BO said he likes good paying Union jobs. Guess what Unions, he doesn’t. BO wants to be re-elected, not when you give the ammo to say you’re anti-job. So all this talk of private jobs is HOT AIR from BO. This action tells me he hates people who work and he wants his Socialist plan of dependency.

Obama administration to reject Keystone pipeline
By Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson, Wednesday, January 18, 11:39 AM

The Obama administration will announce this afternoon it is rejecting a Canadian firm’s application for a permit to build and operate a massive oil pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border, according to sources who have been briefed on the matter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/2012/01/18/gIQAwoVE8P_story.html

Socialist Mental Gymnastics

Or, The Art Of Pretzel Logic

Smitty linked to Karl’s article at Hot Air that Dana Pico linked to from Patterico’s Pontifications, discussing why gridlock is a good thing. Smitty then contrasted that with the Occupy Wall Street mob.

If it just hurts too bad to try to get the government federal government to do things for you, then, if you’re like 99% of the people, you’ll figure it out for yourself. The 1% of the #OccupyWallStreet crowd? … [T]here are, in fact, unreachable people.

I’ve met a few of those unreachable types throwing their bile on Conservative blogs. Smitty goes on to link to Tina Korbe’s article as he ties the Occupy Wall Street nutters to Socialism. I myself have tied those clowns to Socialism.

And the anarchist socialist for huge government and freebies (how many oxyMORONS is that, again?) is fool enough to call people who confront his moronitude an economic neophyte! Absolute hilarity!

They are definitely Socialist in their “free meds, free college, 20-dollar-an-hour pay for doing anything or nothing, more freebies” mantra. They are definitely anarchist in their demands for border-free living and other demands. They are definitely for massive government growth with their demands for absolutely huge government spending and their demands for huge amounts of government hand-outs and their demands for allotta tariffs. Which means their demands, taken as a whole, are oxyMORONIC and convoluted and incoherent.

And Smitty explains the four steps of Socialism:

Socialism is the ultimate form of passive aggression, and an easily described four step process:

1. Marx said: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
2. This means: “If I can’t have it, you can’t have it.”
3. You have; therefore, you stole.
4. Having branded you a thief, all attacks are moral.

This is very true. It is also very true that Socialism requires a Government-level violation of the Tenth Commandment.

• You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Therefore, it is not possible to hold to Socialist principles and be true to Judeo-Christian principles at the same time.

Going back to the Socialist four-step process (which is lie-filled), “Having branded you a thief, all attacks are moral.” That means “the ends justifies the means” and they will use any means possible, including violence, the threat of violence, law-breaking, anarchic mob-rule, lies, personal irresponsibility, and anything else imaginable. Such as the OWS mob threatening to break into homes of the Wealthy and Corporate or entering corporate offices and violently murdering the corporate officers and employees found there. Or the OWS mob defecating on police cruisers (that particular photo at second link).

While these violent, law-breaking anarcho-socialists are out there breaking laws and threatening violent murder, many of their Left-wing fellow travelers — in Congress and in society — are loudly proclaiming their support. Frances Fox Piven of Cloward-Piven infamy is undoubtedly proud of the violent, law-breaking radical Leftist uprising. Perry Hood, a commenter at Common Sense Political Thought, has on multiple occasions warned of violent uprisings if the Government didn’t proceed along the path he, a Socialist who claims to merely be “Progressive” (same thing), wants. He has repeatedly pointed to the violent uprisings in Europe (which are Leftists demanding more freebies from Governments which are collapsing under the weight of the debt caused by an excess of freebies) as proof of what is coming to the US if the Socialists don’t get their way.

We have seen how the Left acts when it doesn’t get its way: Violence, threats of violence and murder, destruction of property, attempts to overturn the democratic process, violations of Laws myriad and sundry. We have also seen how the Right acts when it doesn’t get its way: Peaceably assembling for redress of grievances, personal responsibility, and the use of the democratic process (the November, 2010 elections) to get what it wants.

Harry Reid Goes Nukular

And it could very well back-fire on him — in the short term, and the long term.

In an all-out effort to prevent the Senate Republicans from forcing a vote on Barack Obama’s “jobs” bill, Harry Reid has pulled out all the stops, including using the “nuclear” option. In a move that upset over 100 years of precedent and changed the rules on the fly without consulting Republicans, Harry Reid and 50 other Democrats decided to change the rules and not permit an amendment after a cloture vote, after the Senate Parliamentarian had declared Republicans had that right. And the amendment the Republicans wanted to offer was Barack Obama’s “jobs” bill that Barack Obama has been constantly demanding “pass this now”. That’s right, Democrat Harry Reid is refusing to allow Democrat Barack Obama’s “jobs” bill to even be voted on.

As Allahpundit said:

Apparently, to spare The One the humiliation of having members of his own party vote no on the PassThisBillRightAway Act of 2011, Reid freaked out and nuked the GOP’s right to offer amendments entirely. That’s how much of a fiasco O’s jobs plan is right now: Simply to avoid having to vote on it, longstanding Senate rules are being rewritten on the fly by … his own party.

But when you detonate a nuclear device in your own kitchen, you have to expect the resultant fallout. Ed Morrissey quotes The Hill:

Senate Republicans vow they will retaliate for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) decision to unilaterally change the Senate’s rules Thursday without prior warning or negotiation.

Republican aides say their bosses will now be even more reluctant to allow the Senate to conduct routine business by unanimous consent, forcing Reid to gather 60 votes for even the most mundane matters.

“Reid fired a major salvo and it’s hard to imagine a return shot won’t be fired. Maybe over the weekend they’ll come up with something and try to make it less worse than it already is,” said a Senate GOP leadership aide. …

Triggering what has come to be known as the chamber’s “nuclear option,” Reid overturned Senate precedent that allowed Republicans to force votes to proceed to non-germane amendments. He did so by voting with 50 of his Democratic colleagues to overturn a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian.

The controversial procedural tactic hasn’t been used in years. In a chamber where it requires the consent of all 100 senators to dispense with the reading of a bill, changing the rules unilaterally is considered bad form.

Harry Reid (D – NV) is trying to prevent the fallout by having a little get-together to discuss things and smooth things over. But Republicans likely won’t buy it this time around. You see, Harry Reid made Republicans an offer at the beginning of the year, which Republicans accepted. Then Harry Reid acted like a Democrat.

When Ronald Reagan approved the Democrats’ tax increases, it was based on Democrat promises of cutting 3 dollars in spending for 1 dollar in tax increases. The Democrats broke that promise immediately. Ed Morrissey notes:

At the beginning of the year, Reid and McConnell worked out an agreement to allow Republicans to offer limited amounts of amendments while Republicans promised to stop filibusters on motions to proceed (as opposed to motions to close debate and vote) unless the bill in question was very controversial. All year long, though, Reid has aggressively filled the amendment “trees” to keep Republican amendments from being considered, which had already angered the GOP caucus. After dropping this bombshell on them with no warning and no negotiation, Republicans aren’t going to be in a mood to attend Reid’s venting session or trust him to keep his word at all.

So Harry Reid went Democrat and broke his promise, what’s new? And he thinks he can prevent nuclear fallout from his nuclear blast by making even more promises he knows he’ll be going Democrat and breaking? Expect the Senate to get even more bogged down now than it was before. And come 2013 when Republicans are once again in the majority, expect the Reid precedent to be remembered and used, much to the dismay of Harry Reid and the Democrats who set that precedent.

About Those “Draconian” Spending Cuts

As most Americans expected, they didn’t happen. According to the CBO, Federal spending increased by 4.2 percent in Fiscal Year 2011 over Fiscal Year 2010. So, all that Democrat screaming about all those horrible and draconian spending cuts didn’t actually happen. What a surprise.

Jazz Shaw reports:

We still have a long way to go in sorting out the pressing issues facing the nation, and we don’t all agree on the solutions. Foreign policy questions abound, our energy policy is a mess and we still need to bring down those unemployment numbers. But at least there’s one thing we’ve managed to nail down, and that’s spending. Everyone figured out that we have to cut costs and stop running up the deficit, leading us to take quick, substantive action. So… how’s that working out for you? According to the latest CBO report… meh.

Defense spending, where Democrats look first for any cutting? It increased a lethargic 1 percent, as did Medicaid spending. Social Security and Medicare, on the other hand, increased 4 percent, according to The Hill’s reporting. That would mean none of those four even reached the total Federal Budget increase of 4.2 percent. So where was the huge increase?

According to the OMB, Defense spending in 2010 accounted for 19 percent of the Federal Budget, Social Security was 20.4 percent, and Medicare and Medicaid combined for another 19 percent. That means an entire 58.4 percent of the Federal Budget fell below the overall increase in Budget spending, large chunks of it well below. That really leaves only interest on the debt and non-defense discretionary spending as places to look for the major increases in spending. And the interest rate is near zero, record-low territory.

All these draconian cuts? Didn’t happen. All these draconian cuts in non-defense discretionary spending? Absolutely didn’t happen. But, hey, maybe the Federal Government increased spending by less than the inflation rate? We can hope. Oh well, that hope would be dashed. According to the Federal Government, the Consumer Price Index rose by 3.8 percent in the 12 months ending in August. That would mean that, while Defense spending didn’t come close to matching inflation, the overall Federal Budget increased faster than inflation. And as I’ve shown, non-defense discretionary spending necessarily increased much faster. Draconian cuts in non-defense discretionary spending? That was a big lie.

And here’s a real kicker for people putting money in savings accounts. You can get 1 percent interest on your money. That means, if you put 10 dollars in a savings account last year, it would be 10 dollars and 10 cents now. But what cost 10.00 last year costs 10.38 this year. Your ten bucks you saved and got interest on just lost 28 cents in buying power, so you’re 28 cents worse off than when you started. But then again, you get the added pleasure of paying taxes on that dime you got in interest. So you’re actually worse off than that 28 cent loss in buying power.

All while the government keeps spending more and more while claiming to make “draconian” cuts.

Harry Reid Blocks Vote On Obama “Jobs” Bill

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R – KY) tried to bring up Barack Obama’s Democrat slush fund (but let’s call it a “jobs” bill) for a Senate vote yesterday, but Harry Reid (D – NV) refused to allow it. That’s right, the “jobs” bill that Barack Obama has said “pass it now”, “vote on it now” is being blocked by DEMOCRAT Senator Harry Reid while Obama is out on the campaign trail castigating Republicans.

From The Hill:

In a lively spat on the Senate floor Tuesday, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) attempted call up President Obama’s jobs plan for an immediate vote in the upper chamber.

However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who supports the legislation, blocked the vote.

Reid used a procedural maneuver called “filling the tree,” which allows the majority leader to say a piece of legislation has had all of its possibilities for amendments.

McConnell had tried to offer the president’s job package as an amendment to the China currency legislation, which was being debated in chamber. By “filling the tree,” Reid blocked that move.

Harry Reid has used that “filling the tree” procedural move an unprecedented percentage of the time over the past three years to prevent Republicans from offering amendments to Bills being debated in the Senate, effectively shutting Republicans out of the Bill-creating process. The reason DEMOCRAT Harry Reid refuses to allow Barack Obama’s “jobs” bill to come up for a vote is because he knows with 53 Senators on his side of the aisle, he cannot get 50 votes for it. He most likely cannot get even 46 out of his 53 Senators to vote for the albatross. And Barack Obama needs this piece of campaign propaganda if he wants any chance of winning in 2012, but the Democrat Senators cannot afford to vote on the “jobs” bill if they want any chance of winning in 2012.

The same reason Harry Reid (D – NV) refuses to allow a vote on Obama’s “jobs” bill as Obama presented is the very same reason Harry Reid (D – NV) has refused to even attempt a Federal Budget since April, 2009: he cannot afford to have any Democrats on record because that will cause Democrats to lose elections. It really is that simple.

The Lonely Conservative adds:

Charade? What charade? How is calling for a vote on a bill the president has been demanding Congress vote on right away a charade? Could it be Harry Reid was worried that the Democrats don’t have the votes to pass it?

But that didn’t stop Obama from calling out Eric Cantor in a campaign speech by name, and telling people to demand passage of a bill that he knows is dead in the water. The only thing he left out was to contact any Democrats.
…
This is getting so old.

I have to disagree with The Lonely Conservative here. It’s not getting old. It’s long past the chunky green milk stage now.

Doug Powers adds some snark value to the truth.

Reid’s doing some heel dragging because he knows he doesn’t have the votes — or possibly the intentional delay is subtle payback for 20 minutes on hold. [referencing Obama's keeping Senate Democrats waiting on the phone for 20 minutes (elevator music?).]

Meanwhile, President Obama has given up on “pass this jobs bill now” and is settling for “pass it this month.” Next up: “Easter-ish would be good too…”

From Tina Korbe:

Perhaps [Obama] should have saved his censure for Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.). The Senate Majority Leader today refused to allow Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to bring the president’s jobs bill up for a vote.

The way Reid did it was a little wonky. McConnell planned to add the AJA as an amendment to the China currency bill currently under consideration in the Senate. “I wanted to disabuse [Obama] of the notion that somehow we’re unwilling to vote on his proposal,” McConnell said. But Reid “filled the tree,” taking advantage of his right of first recognition and adding so many amendments to the bill that McConnell was unable to tack the AJA to it, too. Reid then even went so far as to accuse McConnell of “obstruction” and engaging in “a political stunt.”

Yes. Senator Harry Reid (D – NV) refuses to allow the Republicans to add Barack Obama’s (D – Prez) “jobs” bill as an amendment to another bill being debated while simultaneously accusing Republicans of “obstruction” when Obama wants to “pass the bill now” and is accusing Republicans of refusing to vote on it. That’s what you call a “pants on fire” lie out of Senator Harry Reid (D – NV).

The whole “jobs” bill is a campaign propaganda stunt. Barack Obama knows it. Harry Reid knows it. House Democrats know it. All the Republicans know it. And now it’s fodder for Republicans to use against Senate Democrats because the Senate Democrats have refused to go on record for or against it, just as they have refused to go on record with a Federal Budget since April, 2009.

Hispanics And Voter ID

The Democrats and the mainstream media (one and the same) have pushed this meme that Voter ID is raaaaacist and Republicans and Conservatives are raaaaacist in pushing it. The Democrats and mainstream media push the idea that Voter ID is an attempt to prevent minorities from voting. So, let’s find out how minorities feel about it, shall we? In particular, the Hispanic minority. How do Hispanics feel about Voter ID? Well, they are in very strong support of Voter ID.

The Washington Examiner (HT Hot Air Headlines) reported on a poll conducted among Hispanic voters.

As part of a broad survey of Hispanic attitudes on a variety of political issues, the poll, conducted for the conservative group Resurgent Republic, asked a sample of 1,200 voters the following question: “As you may have heard, many states are considering laws that would require registered voters to present photo identification, such as a driver’s license, in order to cast their vote. Do you support or oppose those laws?”

In Florida, 88 percent of those surveyed said they support the laws, while just ten percent oppose them. In Colorado 71 percent support the law, while 26 percent oppose, and in New Mexico, 73 percent support the law, while 25 percent oppose. In general, Hispanic voters in Colorado and New Mexico are more liberal than those in Florida. But strong majorities in all three states favor photo ID laws.

The overwhelming support for photo ID contrasts sharply with the intense opposition to such laws in the Justice Department, the Democratic party, and the civil rights establishment. In June, Democratic National Committee chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz called voter ID laws the work of Republicans “who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally — and very transparently — block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic.”

Debbie Wasserman Schultz will get nowhere among the independent voters with that “Jim Crow” garbage, and even less traction among the people who know who set up the Jim Crow Laws, but that is not her intent. Her intent is to continue the Liberal Lie.

As Mackubin T Owens wrote for the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University in 2002 (prominently linked in my sidebar):

The Democratic Party’s war against African-Americans continued after the Civil War (which many Democrats in fact opposed, often working actively to undercut the Union war effort). Democrats, both north and south fought the attempt to implement the equality for African-Americans gained at such a high cost. This opposition was often violent. Indeed, the Ku Klux Klan operated as the de facto terrorist arm of the national Democratic Party during Reconstruction.

Democrats defeated Reconstruction in the end and on its ruins created Jim Crow. Democratic liberalism did not extend to issue of race. Woodrow Wilson was the quintessential “liberal racist,” a species of Democrat that later included the likes of William Fulbright of Arkansas, Sam Ervin of North Carolina, and Albert Gore, father of Al, of Tennessee.

So no, it is not Republicans who created and maintained Jim Crow laws, but rather Democrats who did so. That is historical record that no Democrat wants the general public to know about. But moron Debbie Whatsername Schmuck’s rant. “and literally — and very transparently — block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic.” What is Voter ID designed to do? Block felons who don’t have voting rights, illegal aliens, people who used ACORN voter registration fraud tactics to register multiple times under multiple names and multiple addresses, dead people, pets, under-age people from fraudulently casting their illegal votes. So yes, that is a class of people who vote almost exclusively Democrat.

But Voter ID has nothing to do with “race” or ethnicity, and even the overwhelming majority of Hispanic voters know that. Voter ID has everything with the purity and authenticity and legitimacy of the vote. Actually, I want slimeballs like Debbie to continue spreading the Leftist lies among the Hispanic community because the Hispanic community as a whole knows the truth. And the Leftist lies will shove more Hispanic voters into voting Republican, where their moral positions naturally place them anyway.

Maxine Waters Wants You To “Go Straight To Hell!”

Tina Korbe writes:

Our lovely liberal legislators just can’t seem to stop. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) this weekend informed the world just where she thinks Debbie Wasserman Schultz’ Tea Party “tyrants” and Vice President Joe Biden’s Tea Party “terrorists” belong:

Rep. Maxine Waters continued to make waves during the summer recess, telling a town hall meeting that “the tea party can go straight to hell.”

“This is a tough game. You can’t be intimidated. You can’t be frightened. And as far as I’m concerned — the tea party can go straight to hell,” Waters said, according to Los Angeles television station KABC.

The remarks came at a “Kitchen Table Summit” in Inglewood Saturday night attended by more than a thousand people. Waters’ comments came on the heels of questions about unemployment and the economy.

Her remarks followed a week in which her name figured prominently in discussion, first as she expressed outrage that President Obama’s jobs tour did not specifically target the black community, which has disproportionately suffered from the unemployment problem, and then as Rep. Allen West referred to her as a “boss” or “overseer” on the “plantation” of the Democratic Party.

This is the same Maxine Waters who has very serious ethics problems. Recall, she got herself caught in a major scandal. She pushed to send a large chunk of tax-payer dollars to rescue a badly mismanaged and failed bank that her husband was heavily invested in. As far as I am concerned, that is criminal, unAmerican, unethical, a direct violation of her Oath of Office, influence peddling to benefit her financial status, and more.

But if you disagree with Maxine Waters, you’re uncivil, racist, terrorist, hostage-taker. And besides, you can go to Hell. If you want Maxine Waters investigated, you’re uncivil, racist, terrorist, hostage-taker. And besides, you can go to Hell. If you want Maxine Waters punished to the full extent of the Law, you’re uncivil, racist, terrorist, hostage-taker. And besides, you can go to Hell.

Liberals want to shut their opponents up. Liberals want their opponents silenced. I want Maxine Waters to keep talking. Because she does much damage to the Liberal brand and the Democrat Party. Her district may be safe. She may never have to fear being voted out of office. But the rest of the country can hear her, and they’re more sane. And her outrageousness will spill over onto the rest of the Democrat Party, making saner districts that much harder for Democrats to win.

Earlier, Ed Morrissey wrote an article suggesting it might be better for Democrat election hopes if Obama were to choose not to run. With the economy sinking and Obama’s poll numbers sinking, even in deep-blue states, having Obama at the top of the ticket could drag down the down-ticket Democrats with him as he loses his re-election bid. There’s even an outside chance that Republicans could win a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate due to Obama’s being at the top of the ticket. Add Maxine Waters’ outrageous words and Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s outrageous words, and Democrats in saner districts and states across the country could be dragged further down.

So yes Maxine, Debbie, Barack, please keep spouting your spewage. And you can go straight to Hell, you racist, uncivil, terrorist, hostage-takers.

Taxes Cannot Erase Deficit

The government cannot tax away the deficit spending. It’s an impossibility.

From RushLimbaugh.com (note the express written permission at the bottom):

There Aren’t Enough “Rich” to Tax

August 05, 2011

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We’re into statistics today and the unemployment statistics are just fascinating in the way that we’re being spun. It’s as bad as the way we were spun on this debt deal, and the more you look at this debt deal, what a disaster that is.

I’m gonna explain why as the program unfolds. This is from the UK Daily Mail. You’re not gonna see this in the American media. Speaking of the American media, remember all of those years, the Bush years, the media apparatchiks on TV were trying to talk down the economy and trying to talk down the market. They did everything they could to talk down the economy. Why, it was almost as though they wanted Bush to fail. Shazam, it was almost as though they wanted Bush to fail. You remember.

For four years running at 4.7% unemployment, at 5% unemployment, at 5.6% unemployment, they were proclaiming we were either on the verge of a recession or were in one. They were out trying to find the worst sob stories. Now they’re doing everything they can to talk it up. Do they really think we’re such fools that we don’t see this? When unemployment started spiraling upward, what did we get from ‘em? We got stories on how wonderful that is. Families are finding one another again, friends have social time, the stress and strain of working is no longer a part of anybody’s day. It really is a new perspective on life. All the wonderful aspects of not having a job, all the great things you could do if you didn’t have any work you had to do. “Funemployment,” they called it. And now they’re doing everything they can, they’re just incapable of telling us the truth, totally incapable.

The question here is who will tank first? Right now it looks like we’re in a race to see whether the country or Obama will tank first. It looks like it’s running neck and neck here. And the trick here is to make Obama tank first. Now, this UK Daily Mail story that you will not see in the US media. “Soak the rich, eh? They do not have the money. A report from the Internal Revenue Service found that the rich –” and the rich are defined this way: 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more. What do you think those 8,274 people earned combined in 2009? Snerdley, take a wild guess. All of you out there, take a wild guess in your mind. I’m not asking you to call and I’m gonna tell you what the number is here in just a second. But just think about this, 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more.

Now, you got Buffett in there and Gates at their $40 to 50 billion, but that’s their net worth. What do they earn? It’s a different number. But you take all of those people, just give me a number, what do you think, 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more, what was the combined total income earned of all those 8,274 people in 2009? One trillion, $250 billion. That’s what you say, Brian? Snerdley says a trillion. The answer is $240 billion. Brian, you were $10 billion off. That’s it. That’s right. That’s it. The 8,274 people with incomes of $10 million per year or more earned a total of $240 billion in 2009.

“Even of you confiscated every dime they earned, you would barely have enough money to cover government spending for 24 days.” In fact, this $240 billion, I mean that’s pretty close to the actual real number of budget cuts in the debt deal when you strip everything away. Now, about 25% of that money already goes to the federal government for federal income. So actually that $240 billion would run the government for 18 days.

“Another 227,000 people earned $1 million or more in 2009. Millionaires averaged taxes of 24.4% of their income — up from 23.1% in 2008.” Now, you might be asking, how did that happen? Well, the Bush tax cuts, folks. Obama’s tax increases hadn’t started, and Obama’s not immaculated yet. “They, too, did not earn enough money to come anywhere close to covering the annual deficits that are $1.5 trillion a year.” So 8,274 people who earn $10 million per year or more, earn a total of $240 billion in 2009. Another 227,000 people earned a million dollars or more in 2009. But it doesn’t come anywhere close to covering the deficit of $1.5 trillion.

“Barack Obama was the first president to sign a budget with a $1 trillion deficit into law.
In fact, all the taxpayers — including the ones who get a refund check bigger than the withholding taxes they paid — have the money.” The point of this is next time you hear Obama or a Democrat say we’ve got to raise taxes on the rich, it’s not about getting revenue to run the government because they don’t have the money. Now, I’ve been doing this show for 23 years, and I have been employing this data, whatever the accurate data was for the year I was disclosing it, it hasn’t changed in terms of percentages. Confiscate every dollar earned by people who make $10 million a year or more and you run the country for barely over two weeks. That has not changed since I first heard of this statistic 23, 25 years ago. It hasn’t changed. As it is, these people are already paying 70% of the total income tax burden! So there’s no economic growth hidden away here in a tax increase on these people.

How does taking money out of the private sector grow it? And that’s what tax increases do. How in the world does taking money out of the private sector cause it to grow? Mathematically impossible, folks. From Reuters: “Total adjusted gross income reported on tax returns, measured in 2009 dollars, was $7.626 trillion, down from $8.233 trillion in 2008 and $8.989 trillion in 2007. Total adjusted gross income was up only slightly from the $7.475 trillion reported in 2001, when there were 10 million fewer taxpayers.”

Individual tax collections equaled 15.4% of all income. “Doubling federal income taxes for everyone would still leave us $400 billion or so shy of balancing the budget.” That’s the bottom line. Doubling federal income taxes for everybody would raise $1.1 trillion, $400 billion shy of the deficit. I know these numbers are hard to follow, but all this is gonna be on RushLimbaugh.com later today, and I suggest you go there, print it out, or e-mail it, make electronic copies, PDF, whatever you want, and spread this around. This needs to be seen by many people. It’s not going to be in the US media.

END TRANSCRIPT

If the Federal Government doubled everyone’s taxes, that would only be enough to cover roughly three quarters of the Obama/Democrat Deficit Spending. We would still have a 400-billion-dollar-a-year deficit, a historically high figure. And that’s considering a static economic environment. That’s not taking into account the heavy inflation, unemployment, business closings, personal bankruptcies, etc, etc that such a massive tax hike would cause. This is Cloward-Piven stuff, folks. Cloward-Piven.

Even in a static environment where doubling income tax rates would double income tax revenue, the Federal Government would have to actually cut 400 billion dollars from its annual budget. In Washington, DC and in the Democrats’, lamestream media’s, Ruling Class Republicans’ language of “reducing the increase in expenditures equals a cut” where a 400 billion dollar “cut” over 10 years is draconian, “kill your momma and your kiddies” extremism, how is the Fed ever expected to make an actual 400 billion dollar real cut for a single year?

And we need real, actual cuts of at least 1,200 billion dollars a year, and not just reductions in the rate of growth. 2012 is critical, folks. Getting rid of Obama and 6 Democrat Senators is not enough to save this country. We need to throw the Democrats and the RCRs out, and replace them with true Constitutional Conservative men and women. And we need to hold their feet to the fire.

No more “Centrist” Republicans. Our nation cannot afford them. All the “Centrist” Republicans will do is pilot the Ship of State to the scene of the crash a bit more slowly. And the TEA Party is here for a time such as this — that’s why Democrats, lamestream media, RCRs fear and hate and malign the TEA Party.

White House Debt Graph Lies

It’s to be expected from this White House. The Obama Administration couldn’t tell the truth if their lives depended on it.

Read the whole article. HT Ocean Shores Patriot

Here’s a glimpse:

This graphical mis-truth has another major flaw. While showing 8 years of “domestic and defense spending” for President Bush, the White House propaganda bar shows no spending whatsoever for the Obama administration.

Lastly, the farm bill was passed in 2008 by a Democrat congress over George Bush’s VETO. That spending should fall on Pelosi and Reid, not Bush. The farm bill was $300 billion so almost that entire part of the chart does not belong to Bush.

Integrity is a thing of the past as far as the Democrat leadership is concerned. They don’t need no stinkin’ integrity!