Sunday, July 31, 2011

Saturday, July 30, 2011


That's actually what he said!

The vote in the house to "pass" a debt ceiling bill was doomed to be rejected in the Senate, no matter WHAT was in it.

The actual bill contained so many concessions that it might as well have been written by Democrats in the first place.

It looked like a Democrat document, by the time it was passed in the House, with the exception of the balanced budget amendment.

Everybody knows that it is evil to balance budgets.

Businesses don't balance their budgets.

Families don't balance their budgets.

States don't balance their budgets.

Why should the federal government be required to balance its budget.


You say businesses, families and states DO balance their budgets?

Who knew?

Ask a senator directly whether the government should balance its budget.

I mean, say, "Senator Dogbreath, do you think the federal government should have to balance the budget?"

The answer you'll get will depend on which Party Senator Dogbreath belongs to, and more specifically, which wing of the Party he/she belongs to.

Democrats and RINOS will say, "No."

Conservatives will say, "Yes."

Sadly, there are more Democrats and RINOS in government than there are conservatives.

You know what makes me sick?

It makes me sick that they continue to talk about "negotiations" and "compromise."

"Negotiations" to a lawmaker just means "I'll pay you to vote my way on this. Is what I'm offering to pay you enough to make you consider voting with me?" (The pay usually takes the form of some concession to some half-baked idea for someone's district.)

"Compromise" means to invite the opponent to give up some of his/her core principles.

Some of the Congresspersons who were elected to stand for conservative principles, caved on the bill and voted for it, no matter how bad it was.

Shame on them.

Yeah, even shame on West.

President BO, the Child President, was right about one thing: change is needed.

But change is not needed in America.

Change is needed in America's government.

The way they do business needs to change.

That change will only come when the "I'll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine" mentality is changed.

In other words, back scratching needs to be eliminated through an amendment to the Constitution that allows only one subject in any given bill.

Would that slow things down?

You becha!

That's a good thing.

In the mean time, count my support for those who wrote and/or voted for that slimy debt ceiling bill GONE.

If that's the best we can do, God help us!

Friday, July 29, 2011


In the first place, if the House had passed a debt ceiling bill, the Democrat controlled Senate has assured us that they would not pass it.

The end result would still be no deal.

If, by some miracle, the Senate DID pass it, President BO, the Child President, has said he would veto it.

The end result would STILL be no deal.

So, what does it matter?

In the second place, there is no "deadline" to begin with and certainly not August 2nd.

"But, but CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC and CNN have all said the deadline is August 2nd.," you cry!

They either don't know, or they are lying.

Now, you know that those august news groups are not so dumb as to think August 2nd is a real deadline, don't you?

So, what's left?

They are deliberately lying to you.

(I wonder what other things they lie to you about. Maybe they should supply us with a list of the things we can trust them on and the things we cannot trust them on. The former is bound to be a very short list.)

Thirdly, either way there will be no "default." It simply will not happen.

We will still pay the interest on the debt, with or without a "raise the debt ceiling" bill, therefore there will be no default.

With no default, there is no crisis.

This is WAY too much ado about nothing.

The government must learn to live within its means, and that's all there is to it.

The Boehner bill was a bad bill, because it uses the same old political game of calling less of an increase a decrease.

The Reid bill is a bad bill because it is just plain stupid.

Just how big SHOULD the government be, anyway?

Is there a limit in the minds of liberal/progressives?


Well, that, my friend, is socialism.

And I don't want a socialist country.

Therefore, forget the raising of the debt ceiling and start living within your means, lawmakers.

Give us back the responsibility of taking care of ourselves.

Only those with infirmities greater than those of Steven Hawking should be given one single dime of welfare, anyway, that is: those who cannot work.

Reduce taxation to a small, level, flat rate (for those earning above the poverty level) and watch employment sky-rocket as businesses grow and hire.

Or don't.

If you don't, you'll just maintain the status quo.

Or worse.

As one politician once put it: " ... The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." -- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

Is he a joke, or what?

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

New Saudi Fatwa Defends Pedophilia as “Marriage”

Posted By Raymond Ibrahim On July 26, 2011 @ 12:25 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage |

Muslim “child-marriage” — euphemism for pedophilia — is making headlines again, at least in Arabic media: Dr. Salih bin Fawzan, a prominent cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, just issued a fatwa asserting that there is no minimum age for marriage, and that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle.”

Appearing in Saudi papers on July 13, the fatwa complains that “Uninformed interference with Sharia rulings by the press and journalists is on the increase, posing dire consequences to society, including their interference with the question of marriage to small girls who have not reached maturity, and their demand that a minimum age be set for girls to marry.”

Fawzan insists that nowhere does Sharia set an age limit for marrying girls: like countless Muslim scholars before him, he relies on Koran 65:4, which discusses marriage to females who have not yet begun menstruating (i.e., are prepubescent) and the fact that Muhammad, Islam’s role model, married Aisha when she was 6 years old, “consummating” the marriage — or, in modern parlance, raping her — when she was 9.

The point of the Saudi fatwa, however, is not that girls as young as 9 can have sex, based on Muhammad’s example, but rather that there is no age limit whatsoever; the only question open to consideration is whether the girl is physically capable of handling her husband/rapist. Fawzan documents this point by quoting Ibn Batal’s authoritative exegesis of Sahih Bukhari:

The ulema [Islam’s interpreters] have agreed that it is permissible for fathers to marry off their small daughters, even if they are in the cradle. But it is not permissible for their husbands to have sex with them unless they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men. And their capability in this regard varies based on their nature and capacity. Aisha was 6 when she married the prophet, but he had sex with her when she was 9 [i.e., when she was deemed capable].

Fawzan concludes his fatwa with a warning: “It behooves those who call for setting a minimum age for marriage to fear Allah and not contradict his Sharia, or try to legislate things Allah did not permit. For laws are Allah’s province; and legislation is his excusive right, to be shared by none other. And among these are the rules governing marriage.”

Tuesday, July 26, 2011


The ignoramuses on the left are screaming, "See! Right-Wing Wacko Christians are nuts!"

Anders Behring Breivik, the man who bombed Oslo and killed campers was NOT a Christian, no matter what he claims.

One does not get to be a Christian by declaration.

A Christian is one who follows Christ, having placed his/her faith in, and only in, His finished work at the cross of Calvary.

Others may call themselves Christians by default (that is: they are not Muslim, not Hari Krishna, not this or that and are not athiests, therefore they must be Christian), but they are not Christians.

"Christian" means, "little Christ."

If a person does not follow Christ and does not place his/her faith in the finished work of Christ at the cross of Calvary, he/she is not a Christian, no matter how much he or she protests that he or she is one,

And if one really IS a Christian, he/she does not kill people in the name of Christ, for that would not be following Christ.

Anders Behring Breivik is not a Christian, he is a mad-man.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Feed Your Family on $10 Billion a Day

Note: I ran this article some months ago. I don't remember the source, so if you know, please tell me so I can give credit where credit is due. I did not write it. Nevertheless, it is very good.

Now that the POTUS is wanting to ADD more taxes to the debt ceiling "deal," it seemed appropriate to  put some things into perspective.

So here it is:

Seems like these days I hear a lot of whiny whiners whining about "out of control government spending" and "insane deficits" and such, trying to make hay out of a bunch of pointy-head boring finance hooey. Sure, $3.7 trillion of spending sounds like a big number. "Oh, boo-hoo, how are we going to get $3.7 trillion dollars? We're broke, boo-hoo-hoo," whine the whiners. What these skinflint crybabies fail to realize is that $3.7 trillion is for an entire year - which translates into only a measly $10 billion per day!

Mister, I call that a bargain. Especially since it pays for all of us - you and me, the whole American family. Like all families, we Americas have to pay for things - health, food, safety, uncle Dave America with his drinking problem. And when little Billy America wants that new quad runner they promised, do Mom and Dad America deny him? No, they get a second job at Circle K, because they know little Billy might have one of his episodes and burn down the house.

So let's all sit down together as an American family with a calendar and make a yearly budget. First, let's lock in the $3.7 trillion of critical family spending priorities; now let's get to work on collecting the pay-as-we-go $10 billion daily cash flow we need.

12:01 AM, January 1Let's start the year out right by going after some evil corporations and their obscene profits. And who is more evil than those twin spawns of Lucifer himself, Exxon Mobil and Walmart? Together these two largest American industrial behemoths raked in, between them, $34 billion in 2010 global profits. Let's teach 'em both a lesson and confiscate it for the public good. This will get us through...

9:52 AM January 4
Okay, maybe I underestimated our take. But we shouldn't let Exxon and Walmart distract us from all those other corporate profiteers out there worth shaking down. In fact, why don't we grab every cent of 2010 profit made by the other 498 members of the Fortune 500? That will net us another, let's see, $357 billion! Enough to get us to...

2:00 AM February 9
So we're running out of corporate cash, but look - it's Super Bowl time! As we all know, the game has become a crass disgusting festival of commercialism. So let's take all the TV ad money spent on stupid Super Bowl ads, and apply that to government needs. That would be $250 million, enough to fund us for, let's see... 36 minutes. The half time show, at least. But why stop there? Let's take every cent of ad money spent on all 45 Super Bowls, a cool $5 billion, which would cover us until...

2:00 PM February 9
Speaking of sports, why should the players be immune to our pressing public needs? Lord knows professional athletes make obscene salaries for playing a dumb game. So let's take the combined salaries of all players in the NFL, Major League Baseball, the NBA, and the NHL. Hey, they've got endorsement deals, they'll hardly miss it. Throw in the total winnings of everybody on the PGA tour and NASCAR, and we get $9.4 billion, enough to get us through until...

1:00 PM February 10
Okay, it's time to stop messing around. Athletes aren't the only ones greedily raking it in. What about America's rich - those fancy pants fat cats living the high life in the above-$250,000 income bracket? According to IRS statistics, these 1.93% of US households are hogging 25% of US income. And why do they need it? For crying out loud, they probably stole it anyway. I say let's take 100% of every penny they make above $250,000. They can use the rest to pay their state and local taxes. Now we're talking big bucks, brother. How much? Let's see...

A: Number of US households: 116,000,000
B: Average US household income: $68,000 (median = $52,000)
C: Total US household income (A * B): $7.89 trillion
D: Percent of households above $250k income: 1.93%
E: Number of households above $250k income (A*D): 2,238,800
F: Percent of national income earned by households making $250k or more = 25%
G: Total income of households making $250k or more (C*F): $1.97 trillion
H: Total income of households in excess of $250k (G - E*$250,000) = $1.412 trillion

Alright! Take that, fat cats! Our $1.412 trillion windfall has us covered for the next 141 days, or until...

6:00 PM July 2
Well, I guess maybe there are a few items we can cut from the budget. Those quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Why don't we end all funding for those wars, and bring our troops home to march in the Fourth of July parade? That would save us $105 billion Afghanistan and $159 billion in Iraq, a total of $264 billion - enough savings to cover us until...

4:00 AM July 29
Summer blockbuster season! And of course the biggest blockbuster of all time was Star Wars. To punish George Lucas for those stupid sequels, let's confiscate every penny of revenue generated by the Star Wars franchise since 1977 - movies, TV rights, books, toys, action figures, everything - which nets us $25 billion. Enough to keep the lights on until...

4:00 PM August 1
Well, there's plenty more money in Hollywood to go after. So, for the national good, let's evict everyone in Beverly Hills and sell their homes at current market value. 15,000 homes at $2 million per gets us another $30 billion, paying the bills through...

4:00 PM August 4
The kids will be going back to school soon, so we're gonna have to bring out the big guns and really go after those moneybag plutocrats like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Between 'em, those two bastards have amassed a combined fortune of $100 billion. What kind of jerk needs that kind of money? The worst thing is they're shielding it from the public treasury using the oldest trick in the billionaire playbook - by continuing to live. Once they kick the bucket, and after we close the estate tax loopholes, the American public will get the 50% of their ill-gotten loot we so richly deserve. So let's say we arrange a couple of unfortunate "accidents" for Mssrs. Gates and Buffett. Now we've got another $50 billion for the US coffers, enough to get us to...

4:00 PM August 9
Aw, screw it. There are plenty more American billionaires to go after - 398 more to be precise, according to the latest Forbes 400, with a combined total net worth of $1.29 trillion. 398 more "accidents," 398 more estates taxed at 50%, and we've got another $650 billion to tide us through...

4:00 PM October 13
Crap. Okay, let's just kill all the billionaires and take all their money. Add in another 100 or so of the almost-billionaires, and that buys us an additional 73 days until...

4:00 PM December 25
Merry Christmas! Just one more week to go. In the spirit of the season, let's give the surviving conservative wingnuts a few of the budget cuts they've been bitching for, like getting rid of foreign aid. This saves $50 billion - getting us to...

4:00 PM December 30
Only 32 hours to go! To cover the remaining $12.5 billion vital federal program tab, let's pass the cash bucket and demand every surviving American man, woman and child to kick in another another $40 bucks. I'm pretty sure they will, after all those previous "accidents."

12:00 AM January 1
Happy New Year!

See? Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Time to do it all again, except this time we'll need to come up with $11 billion per day. I'm sure we'll figure it out somehow.

Do you know where we can get some more plutocrats?

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Ruger is coming out with a new and intimidating pistol in honor of our President, Senators and Congressmen.

It will be named the " Politician."

It doesn't work and you can't fire it.

Friday, July 22, 2011


President BO, the Child President, has proven that he is a purist where wealth redistribution is concerned.

He has initiated a game of "Chicken" with Republicans, certain that they don't have the guts to stand their ground.

The mealy-mouth RINOs, so far, have sided with him by refusing to take a firm stand, "calling his bluff."

OK, so I have a message for Republicans (as well as any Democrats who might care one whit about America):

It is time for you to use the "M" word when refering to the policies of President BO.

If he was ever due any respect, he gave up all rights to it when he started this "game."

We bloggers have known and said he is a Marxist ever since the campaign.

Now it is time for the Rubios, Pawlentys, Boehners and the rest of the conservatives to take off the gloves and tell the American people what they see every day.

They must say things like, "President Obama's desire to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans in order to increase government spending and 'spread the wealth' is Marxist, and the American people do not want a Marxist government."

Come on, guys! What do you think the last elections were about?

Get of your cushie chairs and call a spade a spade!

Do it!

Do it now!

Thursday, July 21, 2011


This past winter was one of the coldest on record in some parts of the United States.

The "experts," whoever in the heck they are, told us it was because of "global warming," and gave this long, convoluted explanation of how that was.

Now, all of the news is about "record" heat in parts of the country.

So, if record cold is caused by global warming, it follows that record heat must be caused by global cooling.


Come on, you idiots. The word "climate" means how weather behaves in a certain locale.

Weather patterns are cyclical, and bear little or no relationship to man's activity, being more closely related to sunspot activity.

One volcano spews more CO2 (not to mention other toxins) into the atmosphere than all of the cars in the U.S.

Oh...I forgot.

Volcano eruptions are cause by global warming which is caused by mankind.

I suggest that we rid the world of the excess population, starting with those who think global warming is man made.

Can you say Algore?

Monday, July 18, 2011


The Lie: “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in a hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a preexisting condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”

The Truth: Her insurance company covered her for her cancer. She had also wanted her expenses paid on her rent and her other bills, and the health insurance company would not do that. She didn’t have AAFLAC, and no other form of supplemental insurance, so they did not pay that part.

In 1995, Obama’s mother left Indonesia to go to Honolulu, where she was diagnosed with the cancer. In Indonesia (where their health care system is far superior to ours) she had been diagnosed with appendicitis and they took out her appendix! Not until she got to America did American doctors recognize the cancer, and she was given full treatment for that! And it was paid by her insurance company, except for the deductible.

Previously, CIGNA, her work disability company, had refused to pay her other living expenses because they were not included in her policy.

The Lie: “More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day. One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.”

Truth: Raddatz got his treatment within the necessary time window and lived three more years

The Lie: "Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America."

Truth: She got treatment for her cancer. There were other “pre-existing conditions” that did not get treated.

The Lie: “…if a family care physician works with his or her patient, to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they are taking their medication in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that's $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, immediately the surgeon is reimbursed.”

Truth: Surgeons being paid fabulous sums of money for amputations turns out to be a total fabrication. The actual reimbursement for such a procedure is less than $1,000. The facts according to the AMA are that reimbursement for amputations are slow in coming and average between $500-$700. And people are not hobbling around en mass working at I-Hop because some greedy doctor amputated their foot!

The Lie: “So if you come in, and you've got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat, or has repeated sore throats. The doctor may look at the reimbursement system, and say to himself, "You know what, I make a heck of a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out." Now that may be the right thing to do, but I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions, just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out, or whether it might just make more sense just to change—maybe they have allergies, maybe they have something else that would make a difference.”

The Truth: Doctors don't do that (except maybe in Chicago).

The Lie: "And what happened in Selma, Ala. and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation and it worried folks in the White House who said, you know we're battling communism, how are we gonna win the battle for hearts and minds all across the world that, right here in our own country John, we're not observing the ideals that are set forth in our Constitution, we might be accused of being hypocrites...

"So the Kennedys decided, we're gonna do an airlift. We're gonna go out to Africa and we're gonna start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. so that they can learn what a wonderful country America is...."

"And this young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. And he met this woman whose great great-great-great- grandfather had owned slaves. But she had a different idea, there's some good craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided we know that, in the world as it has been, it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child...."

"But something stirred across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks were willing to march across a bridge...."

"So they got together, Barack Obama, Jr. was born....

"So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama."

The Truth: Barack Obama, Jr. was born on August 4, 1961 (ostensibly in Hawaii). The first of three marches across that bridge in Selma didn't occur until March 7, 1965, three and half years after he was born and six years after his parents met.

The Lie: "I had an uncle who was one of the, um, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps." Barack Obama, May 26, 2008.

The Truth: Auschwitz was never liberated by American forces. Uh…that would have been the Russian Army. Was his uncle in the Red Army?

The Lie: “My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. Barack Obama, October 2, 2002.”

Obama avers that upon his return to the states, his ‘uncle’ or grandfather was so distraught over Auschwitz that he immediately fled into the attic and refused to leave for six months.

The Lie: "Gramps returned from the war never having seen real combat, and the family moved to California, where he enrolled at Berkeley under the GI bill. But the classroom couldn't contain his ambitions, his restlessness, and so the family moved again."

The Truth: So, Obama’s grandfather signed up for military service on ‘the day after Pearl Harbor’ ostensibly to fight the Japanese, but nevertheless ends up fighting ‘in Patton’s army’ in Germany where he hears the stories of ‘fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka?’

Treblinka? The former camp of Treblinka was a barren field in 1945. Who could have possibly ‘entered Treblinka’ as ‘liberators?

The Lie: “I know the promise of America because I’ve lived it. Michelle has lived it. You have lived it. It is the line of opportunity that led my father across an ocean. It’s the founding ideals that the flag draped over my father’s coffin stand for.”

The Truth: His father was Kenyan, was buried in Kenya with the Kenyan flag draped over his coffin.

TheLie: You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren't sold is not the problem.

The Truth: In fact, a large majority does support a mix, but not 80 percent as the President said. The does show only 20 percent support for spending cuts only, but add up the number for some kinds of mix and cuts and taxes and you get 69 percent, not the 80 percent the President said, an 11-point difference.

One of the characteristics of narcissism is the need to make one's self look good by fabricating stories and "facts."

Narcissists actually believe that their stories are true.

Liberal/progressives believe that what they say is true JUST BECAUSE THEY SAID THEM. Saying them is what makes them true.

President BO, the Child President, is both a liberal/progressive and a narcissist.

Thursday, July 14, 2011


You have read this blog when I called President BO a narcicist.

You have read this blog when I have called President BO our "Child President."

You have read this blog when I have called President BO a Marxist.

You have read this blog when I have called President a would-be tyrant who thinks he has been elected Emperor of the United States.

You read and scoffed.

Well, now he has proven me right.

There are debt ceiling "negotiations" going on between Congress and President BO, but President BO's idea of negotiations is: "My way, just because I said so."

Notice that he is only one person.

Notice that he was elected president, not dictator.

Notice that Congress is many people and that they are elected to do the will of the people they represent.

During a meeting during which the Child President once again tried to connect higher taxes with any debt ceiling deal, President BO met strong resistance and ultimately stormed out of the talks (which, by the way, were taking place IN THE WHITE HOUSE!) like a little child who did not get his way.

His idea of "compromise" is: do it my way.

You can read about it in Politico:

When Cantor said the two sides were too far apart to get a deal that could pass the House by the Treasury Department’s Aug. 2 deadline — and that he would consider moving a short-term debt-limit increase alongside smaller spending cuts — Obama began to lecture him.

“Eric, don’t call my bluff,” the president said, warning Cantor that he would take his case “to the American people.” He told Cantor that no other president — not Ronald Reagan, the president said — would put up with the treatment he was getting from the House majority leader.

This Child President is ready to lead the country into despotism.

And liberal/progressives are willing to go there with him.

ADDENDUM: If you are the kind of poker player who tells your opponent that you are bluffing, I'd like to go about 10 games with you.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011


In his interview with CBS's Scott Pelley (have you seen the adds touting Pelley's "integrity?"), President BO stated that if Republicans don't give up their principles and side with him on the debt ceiling issues "...Social Security checks, Disability checks, Medicare checks...may not go out on August 3rd."

Either Scott Pelley is too stupid to know better or he deliberately let this be said with no challenge.

Which do YOU think?

The fact is, deal or no deal, those checks WILL go out. They are not in danger.

Do you get that?

They WILL go out.

Raising or not raising the debt ceiling will not affect those checks...period.

And your president, with a straight face, looked at Scott Pelley and said, for all to hear, that they may not go out.

He deliberately lied.

Why do you liberals think he found it necessary to lie about those checks?

What could possibly be his reason for lying like that?

Is there some public good that is served by his lie?

Is it possible that he was stooping to a despicable scare tactic to try to force Republicans to cave?

(Note: He would not have to stoop far...he is already as close to the bottom as he could be.)

Why do you continue to support a man who would look you straight in the eye with a serious expression on his face and tell you such a lie?

You must be one with him.

Saturday, July 9, 2011


"We don't need new taxes. We need new taxpayers, people that are gainfully employed, making money and paying into the tax system. Then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. That's what we should be focused on, and that's what we're not focused on.

"You look at all these taxes being proposed, and here's what I say. I say we should analyze every single one of them through the lens of job creation, issue number one in America. I want to know which one of these taxes they're proposing will create jobs. I want to know how many jobs are going to be created by the plane tax. How many jobs are going to be created by the oil company tax I heard so much about. How many jobs are created by going after the millionaires and billionaires the president talks about? I want to know: How many jobs do they create?"

"...which one of these taxes they're proposing will create jobs."

Answer: NONE

"How many jobs are going to be created by the oil company tax..."

Answer: NONE

"How many jobs are created by going after the millionaires and billionaires..."

Answer: NONE

The only answer: More taxpayers via more jobs.

Private sector jobs, not government jobs.

Take $1,000.00 from thirty current tax payers, pay that money to 1 government employee, who will then pay 20% back to the government in taxes. The government spends $30,000.00 and gets back only $6,000.00.

How long does your 5th grade public math skill tell you that can go on?

It can be done only 5 times before the government can no longer sustain it.



Friday, July 8, 2011


A little girl is dead. That much is factual.

Sadly, Americans are woefully ignorant about what makes up the American justice system.

Being found "not guilty" says nothing about innocence or whether Casey Anthony killed her daughter.

No one has EVER been proven innocent in an American court of law, because innocence is assumed until guilt is proven.

It rightly says that the prosecution could not PROVE she murdered her.

Killing and murder are two different things.

If I kill you for invading my home in a way as to cause me to fear for my life, that is not murder.

I believe Casey Anthony killed Caylee. But I also believe she is not guilty.

She is not guilty, not becuse she did or did not kill Caylee, but because it could not be proven.

There was duct tape. That was a fact. But the prosecution could not prove who put it there or when.

There was hair. But the prosecution could not prove how it got where it was.

The prosecution could not prove motive (not necessary in a murder case, but helpful), only that Casey was a slutful playgirl.

That does not prove either motive or murder.

The prosecution said they presented "all of the evidence," which they did.

But the evidence did not prove murder.

How do I know?

Because the jury said so...and that's how it works.

Were they right or wrong? They were right, because they are the ones charged with making the decision, not you, not me and not the media.

Personally, I hope Casey Anthony gets run over by a Greyhound bus.

But that's just me

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Levin: Stephanopoulos Is Foolish in Lecturing Bachmann

By Jeffrey Lord on 6.28.11 @ 1:38PM


You'd think liberals would learn.

Of course not.

George Stephanopoulos made the mistake of going after Michele Bachmann on history -- and promptly proceeded to get his history foolishly wrong. Said George:

For example earlier this year you said that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence worked tirelessly to end slavery. Now with respect Congresswoman, that's just not true.

Actually, George, it is true.

And before we get to Levin's views, allow me.
In 1785, James Madison (as noted by his biographer, Ralph Ketcham in James Madison) took to the floor of the Virginia Assembly, where he was a delegate, and

spoke…favoring a bill Jefferson had proposed for the gradual abolition of slavery (it was rejected), and helped defeat a bill designed to outlaw the manumission of individual slaves. Of this effort a French observer wrote that Madison, "a young man (who)….astonishes…by his eloquence, his wisdom, and his genius, has had the humanity and courage (for such a proposition requires no small share of courage) to propose a general emancipation of the slaves."

Madison was not alone in taking action on the subject. There was another Founding Father, along with Madison a co-author of The Federalist Papers. That would be Alexander Hamilton.

In Alexander Hamilton: A Life, biographer Willard Sterne Randall notes that this Founding Father helped "to found…the Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves in New York." Randall on goes to say that:

….never forgetting the slave markets of his St. Croix childhood, Hamilton became a prime mover in the early abolitionist group. He pressured the (New York) state legislature and helped to raise money to buy and free slaves. The society's founders…elected Hamilton chairman to draw up recommendations for "a line of conduct" for any "members who still possessed slaves." He also established a registry for manumitted slaves, listing their names and ages, "to detect attempts to deprive such manumitted persons of their liberty."

There's more with Hamilton, who also demanded (writing and signing a 1786 petition on the subject) the legislature ban the importation of slaves, calling slavery " a commerce so repugnant to humanity."

There is a difference between opposing something and being unable to change the practice in the day -- and doing nothing. But it is just flatly false to say, as Stephanopoulos says, that the Founding Fathers did not work to end slavery. The historical record, if one looks, is crystal clear. Madison did. Hamilton did. Jefferson did. They did not succeed, they were personally flawed, some owning slaves themselves. (Wasn't it George who wrote a book on a flawed president he knew called All Too Human?) But these Founding Fathers started the United States of America down the right historical path, personally "working" to end slavery.

There was a reason for the Three-Fifths Compromise in the Constitution. That reason: there were delegates to the Constitutional Convention (and they would be called Founding Fathers ) who supported abolition -- as well as those who opposed it. Hence -- the compromise. Which was not about declaring a black man three-fifths of a person as, for example, Al Gore and many liberals erroneously say. (Where was George then?) It was about reducing the power of slavery as an institution in the new United States Congress. If, as slave owners insisted, slaves were property -- then the obvious: they should not be counted as whole persons, which would increase the proportional power of the slave states in the House of Representatives, where representation was based on population size. The slave owners wanted it both ways -- to treat slaves as property but count them as persons, effectively increasing the slave owning power in Congress. The abolitionist delegates said no -- hence the compromise.

So Levin is quite correct here -- adding another Founding Father to this list: George Mason of Virginia.

Mark Levin caught you out, George, and his details are here.

But Michele Bachmann was right. There were Founding Fathers who worked to end slavery.

Is challenging Michele Bachmann on fundamental history and getting it wrong embarrassing for somebody in the liberal media who criticizes others on the subject? Yes. Will George be concerned enough to retract and correct the record?

Uh-huh. Sure.

Which is short hand for just why millions of Americans roll their eyes at liberals. And watch Fox.

And listen to Levin.

From: 25 Immutable Truths About Liberals

2. Never try to reason with a liberal. They disregard any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.

8. Liberals cannot be embarrassed. They lack the gene to blush.

11. There are no honest liberals. If they were honest -- especially to themselves -- they would be conservatives.

16. There are only two types of liberals -- the deceivers and the deceived. The difficulty is telling them apart.

19. Liberals always choke on their own medicine.

22. Liberals not only refuse to learn from their mistakes, they refuse to admit them.

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

The Constitution Matters

A reply to Time magazine’s Richard Stengel.
By Thomas Sowell

The Fourth of July may be just a holiday for fireworks to some people. But it was a momentous day for the history of this country and the history of the world.

Not only did July 4, 1776, mark American independence from England, it also marked a radically different kind of government from the governments that prevailed around the world at the time — and the kinds of governments that had prevailed for thousands of years before.

The American Revolution was not simply a rebellion against the king of England, it was a rebellion against being ruled by kings in general. That is why the opening salvo of the American Revolution was called “the shot heard ’round the world.”

Autocratic rulers and their subjects heard that shot — and things that had not been questioned for millennia were now open to challenge. As the generations went by, more and more autocratic governments around the world proved unable to meet that challenge.

Some clever people today ask whether the United States has really been “exceptional.” You couldn’t be more exceptional in the 18th century than to begin your fundamental document — the Constitution of the United States — with the momentous words, “We the people.”

Those three words were a slap in the face to those who thought themselves entitled to rule and who regarded the people as if they were simply human livestock, destined to be herded and shepherded by their betters. Indeed, to this very day, elites who think that way — and they include many among the intelligentsia, as well as political messiahs — find the Constitution of the United States a real pain because it stands in the way of their imposing their will and their presumptions on the rest of us.

More than 100 years ago, so-called “Progressives” began a campaign to undermine the Constitution’s strict limitations on government, which stood in the way of self-anointed political crusaders imposing their grand schemes on the rest of us. That effort to discredit the Constitution continues to this day, and the arguments haven’t really changed much in 100 years.

The cover story in the July 4th issue of Time magazine is a classic example of this arrogance. It asks of the Constitution, “Does it still matter?”

A long and rambling essay by the magazine’s managing editor, Richard Stengel, manages to create a toxic blend of the irrelevant and the erroneous.

The irrelevant comes first, pointing out in big letters that those who wrote the Constitution “did not know about” all sorts of things in the world today, including airplanes, television, computers, and DNA.

This may seem like a clever new gambit but, like many clever new gambits, it is a rehash of arguments made long ago. Back in 1908, Woodrow Wilson said, “When the Constitution was framed there were no railways, there was no telegraph, there was no telephone.”

In Mr. Stengel’s rehash of this argument, he declares: “People on the right and left constantly ask what the framers would say about some event that is happening today.”

Maybe that kind of talk goes on where he hangs out. But most people have enough common sense to know that a constitution does not exist to micro-manage particular “events” or express opinions about the passing scene.

A constitution exists to create a framework for government — and the Constitution of the United States tries to keep the government inside that framework.

From the irrelevant to the erroneous is a short step for Mr. Stengel. He says, “If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it certainly doesn’t say so.”

Apparently Mr. Stengel has not read the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Perhaps Richard Stengel should follow the advice of another Stengel — Casey Stengel, who said on a number of occasions, “You could look it up.”

Does the Constitution matter? If it doesn’t, then your freedom doesn’t matter.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2011 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775. (color emphases mine)

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

Monday, July 4, 2011


The Star Spangled Banner Lyrics
By Francis Scott Key 1814

Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!