Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Monday, August 29, 2011

Friday, August 26, 2011


I am not a "member" of the Tea Party.

I am, however, a supporter and I do attend their rallies.

Let me tell you about the Tea Party.

First of all, it's members and attenders are American citizens.

That means, Mr. Liberal/Progressive, they are as good as you.

Yep...that's what it means.

And it might even mean they are better.

There are some things you don't see at a Tea Party rally that you DO see at most liberal "protests."

Paid attendees. Liberal protests are full of people who have been bussed in...many for pay...because otherwise the event would be a non-attended event.

Violence. There is no violence at Tea Party rallies. Not even violent rhetoric.

Filth. Tea Partiers leave the grounds at least as clean as they were when they got there. Our maintenance crews remark that they have almost nothing to clean up except to empty the well-used trash cans.

Dirty language. You rarely hear worse than a "damn" or a "hell" at a Tea Party rally, while at liberal events the vulgar, vile, profane, sacrilegious language flows like water over Niagara Falls...in the name of "free speech," of course...with which it has nothing to do.  Liberal/Progressives are not intelligent enough to express themselves without dirty language...they run out of meaningful vocabulary.

Fights. There are never any fights at Tea Party events. But liberals look for opportunities to fight...I assume to show how much of a "man" they are. They especially like to fight anybody who opposes their protest.

You never see a Tea Partyer demonstrating his IQ with his middle finger. That seems to be the official salute of a liberal gathering...especially if you disagree with them.  Their "free speech" does not extend to others, only themselves.

Try Googling some videos of liberal protests and gatherings and you will see what I mean.

Oh, I forgot. Liberal/Progressives are much too lazy to do such a thing. They would rather just call you a vile name and be done with it.

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

New GM said not responsible to fix Impala made by old GM

* Suspension problem said to cause excessive tire wear

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK, Aug 19 (Reuters) - General Motors Co (GM.N) is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit over a suspension problem on more than 400,000 Chevrolet Impalas from the 2007 and 2008 model years, saying it should not be responsible for repairs because the flaw predated its bankruptcy.

The lawsuit, filed on June 29 by Donna Trusky of Blakely, Pennsylvania, contended that her Impala suffered from faulty rear spindle rods, causing her rear tires to wear out after just 6,000 miles. [ID:nN1E7650CT]

Seeking class-action status and alleging breach of warranty, the lawsuit demands that GM fix the rods, saying that it had done so on Impala police vehicles.

But in a recent filing with the U.S. District Court in Detroit, GM noted that the cars were made by its predecessor General Motors Corp, now called Motors Liquidation Co or "Old GM," before its 2009 bankruptcy and federal bailout.

The current company, called "New GM," said it did not assume responsibility under the reorganization to fix the Impala problem, but only to make repairs "subject to conditions and limitations" in express written warranties. In essence, the automaker said, Trusky sued the wrong entity.

"New GM's warranty obligations for vehicles sold by Old GM are limited to the express terms and conditions in the Old GM written warranties on a going-forward basis," wrote Benjamin Jeffers, a lawyer for GM. "New GM did not assume responsibility for Old GM's design choices..."

The One tells another big one.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

Divorce Agreement...

Since we are not going to get gasoline back to $1.50 per gallon and coffee to $6.00 per pound, maybe this would be a solution we could live with.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists, and Obama,

We have stuck together since the late 1950s for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

1. Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy. Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides had such distinct and disparate tastes.

2. We don't like redistributive taxes, so you can keep them.

3. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.

4. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA, and the military.

5. We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar, and bio-diesel.

6. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

7. We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street.

8. You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless homeboys, hippies, druggies, and illegal aliens.

9. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.

10. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

11. You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.

12. You can have the peace-niks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

13. We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.

14. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness, and Shirley McLain. You can also have the U.N., but we will no longer be paying the bill.

15. We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks, and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

16. You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.

17. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.

18. We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."

19. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya," or "We Are the World".

20. We'll practice trickledown economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

21. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

22. Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll let you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

P.S.: Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Al Gore, Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, Barbra Streisand, and especially Jane Fonda with you.

P.S.S.: And you won't have to "Press 1 for English" when you call our country.

Monday, August 22, 2011


The following represents some of the ignorant, dumb remarks made by President George W. Bush during his campaign and presidency.


That might not have been Bush, after all!

h/t to GeeeeeZ.

Sunday, August 21, 2011

SUNDAY RESPITE-Russian Orthodox chant

It is so harmonically rich, and very moving - even if you don't know the words exactly. The harmonies emote. You can hear the grief and pain.

Thursday, August 18, 2011


Our tax system explained in terms of beer...

Using actual percentages, the impact of a tax cut, and the public reaction that everyone should be able to understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. [51% of all citizens pay 0%]

The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said,

'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. 'Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so -
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

The authorship of this piece has been varioursly attributed, but it is a good illustration of the class envy perpetrated by Democrats in particular and all politicians in general.

Wednesday, August 17, 2011


The MainStream Media is full of it today!

"Full of what?" I hear you asking.

Full of stories about Michelle Bachman's statement about her "submission" to her husband.

Liberal/progressive/leftists love this kind of thing. They must, because it's all they know how to talk about.

Well, whether you are Christian, non-Christian, agnostic or atheist, pay attention, because I am about to teach you something (if you are open minded and able to learn anything.

The "Christian" concept of "wives submitting to their husbands" is based on a Scripture found in the New Testament, Ephesians 5:22: "Wives, submit to your husbands..."

The first thing I want you to learn is that the chapter and verse divisions in the Bible never have been, are not now and never will be inspired.

The verses are numbered only to help you find a particular section of Scripture.

The second thing I want you to learn is that whenever one takes ANY Scripture out of its context, both immediate and from the context of Scripture as a whole, it will always be understood wrongly. There are no exceptions to this rule.

Thirdly, while many "Christian" pastors have used Ephesians 5:22 to teach exclusive wifely submission to their husbands, every one of them who has done so is an ignorant fool who needs to go back to school just to learn to read.

What the Bible really says in this section is: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to (in the same way that you submit to) Christ....Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her to make her holy...."

The Bible is replete with references to "submission," and in every instance of instruction, it is speaking about the Christian's submission to the will of God.

The Bible, both Old Testament and New, uses marriage between a man and a woman as a picture of the relationship between Christ and His Church.

(Yes, dear reader, the Old Testament uses marriage as a picture of the relationship between Christ and His Church. I'll bet you didn't know that.)

So, here's my point: Michelle Bachman's "submission" to her husband is only half the story (something that the MainStream Media is used to giving). The other half is the Biblical requirement that her husband also submit to her! 

See, the Bible teaches that we should submit to each other, and that together we should submit to Christ. But you won't hear or see the MSM asking her husband whether or not HE submits to HER.

They're just too stupid for that.

If you're looking for a religion that teaches that women must submit to their husbands (and any other man with whom they come in contact), you'll have to look to Islam.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Monday, August 15, 2011


There's an old sea story about a ship's Captain who inspected his sailors, and afterward told the first mate that his men smelled bad..

The Captain suggested perhaps it would help if the sailors would change underwear occasionally.

The first mate responded, "Aye, aye sir, I'll see to it immediately!"

The first mate went straight to the sailors berth deck and announced, "The Captain thinks you guys smell bad and wants you to change your underwear."

He continued, "Pittman, you change with Jones, McCarthy, you change with Witkowski, and Brown, you change with Schultz."

Someone may come along and promise "Change", but don't count on things smelling any better.

Sunday, August 14, 2011

Thursday, August 11, 2011


Dr. Wafa Sultan on Women and Islam
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - August 11, AD 2011 10:16 AM MST

It is subtitled, but definitely worth the watch/read. Sensible, logical, detailed, clear and outstanding. The money quote begins at 5:15, but it is all brilliant. The only thing I would correct is that islam is not a religion. It is a totalitarian political system masquerading as a faux-religion. Unless and until we collectively destroy the lie of the "religiosity" of islam, it will destroy us with our own Constitution, namely the First Amendment. This point is utterly crucial.

Dr. Sultan also makes the fabulous point that Arab peoples were moral in accordance with the Judeo-Christian milieu of the area and even the Natural Law among the pagans in the area BEFORE the disease of islam appeared in the 7th century. Arab culture was MADE EVIL BY ISLAM. As with all things, the problem of evil in human cultures isn't racial, which is a function of genetics. People do not have evil written into their DNA. The problem is the evil of islam. Islam destroyed Arab culture, as it destroys all culture where ever it is allowed to exist. Evil transcends race.

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Monday, August 8, 2011


Standard & Poor's removed for the first time the triple-A rating the US has held for 70 years.  Moody's Investor Service did so first.

Democrats told us over and over and over and over, "If we don't raise the debt ceiling, we will lose our triple-A rating with Moody and S & P."

So, Republicans caved and agreed to raise the debt ceiling.

And what happened when we RAISED the debt ceiling?

Moody and S & P downgraded our national credit rating.

Of course, liberals now tell us there is no correlation between our magnificent DEAL and the downgraded credit rating.

Proving that they have absolutely NO understanding of economics in any way, shape or form.

Absolutely none.

They don't know how to balance their OWN checkbooks, let alone the government's.

Democrats are experts at projecting the wrong outcome and passing the blame onto others when their wrong projection doesn't happen.

Don't believe me?

Just read ANY liberal response in the comments section of this post, if any of them have the guts to respond.

Sunday, August 7, 2011

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Friday, August 5, 2011


Fact: The top 1% of wage earners in the United States pay 36% of income taxes.

Question: Is that "fair?" Why?

Question: How much of "rich" peoples' earnings should be confiscated in taxes?

Question: In this land of opportunity, why aren't you rich, if you want to be?

Question: If you were rich, how much would you be willing to give to the federal government?

Question: If a person is able to work (able meaning in as good or better condition as Steven Hawking), why shouldn't he/she?

Question: If an able person refuses to work, why should he/she receive a penny from you and me?

Fact: 40% of Americans pay no taxes at all.

Question: Why?

Question: Do you believe 40% of Americans are as bad off or worse than Steven Hawking?

Question: How can you be that dumb?

Since President BO (the Child President) took office, his "inherited" unemployment rate of 8% is still above 9%.

President BO (the Child President) promised it would not exceed 8%.

Question: Have the policies he espoused brought unemployment down to 8% or less at any time during his presidency?

Question: Has he been able to reduce unemployment with his "stimulus" packages (remember those "created" and "saved" jobs)?


The Chevy Volt was hailed as GM's (and President BO-the Child President's) most wonderful invention ever.

Question: Why were only 2870 of them sold so far this year (and most of those to the government)?

Question: Why were there only 125 sold last month?

Question: Why were 16,000 Hummers (sort of the opposite of a Volt) sold in the first quarter of 2011?

Question: Why were 2,257,761 SUVs and Crossovers sold Year To Date?

Almost every one of President BO's (the Child President) policies has failed to deliver what he told us they would deliver.

Question: How effective is he as a president (even when his Party had control of the House, the Senate and the Executive branch)?

Wednesday, August 3, 2011


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): "Thank you to my colleague from Alabama, who does a phenomenal job always of outlining the economic realities of it. And I enjoyed -- could have sat here and listened to him speak even longer. But I understand, according to some, I might be the last speaker today or one of the last, so I don't want to keep the Senate open any longer than it should be. We've done a lot of work here over the last few days.

"I went back around forth today over whether I wanted to speak or not. After all, I think almost everything that can be said has been said regarding the events of the last few days. But I did ultimately want to share my thoughts for a moment, as we head into the August recess, as they call it here in Washington, and many of us here in the Senate will be returning to our home states to explain to the people that we represent what we did or did not do in the last few days.

"First, let me start by pointing out to that our republic is an amazing thing.

"As heated as the rhetoric may have been over the last few days, I think all of us should stop for just a moment and understand that all around the world there are countries that solve the problems we've solved through debate, they solve it through civil war and conflict, armed and otherwise.

"Our republic is an amazing thing. It isn't always pretty. Quite frankly, it's more often than not, very messy. But it has withstood two hundred and thirty-some-odd years of pressures and choices, and it continues to do so even if ultimately what it gives us is not always solutions to our problems. We are blessed to have it.

"I would remind many like myself that were elected in the last election cycle, tightly embracing the principles of our Constitution, that our Constitution is not just a set of words that outline our principles. It gives us a system of government. It gives us this republic. And this republic is valid and it matters, even when the people who are running it may not be people you agree with. And we should always remember that.

"What we have here is special and unique. We should embrace it and be thankful to our God each night that we have the opportunity and the blessing of living in a nation such as this.

"Moving aside from that, however, the facts still remain that this coming month and every month to come, more or less, this government will spend $300 billion a month. That's a lot of money. It’s more than any government has ever spent in the history of man.

"$180 billion of that $300 billion is money that we collect from the people of our country through taxes and fees and other ways. But we borrow $120 billion a month to pay our $300 billion-a-month bill.

And that's just too much money. That's too much money for Republicans; it's too much money for Democrats. It's just too much money.

"And although we should be happy that tomorrow and in the days to come we're not facing a default, and an inability to meet our bills, the truth is, an undeniable one that I don't think anyone here would disagree with me when I say: we can't keep borrowing $120 billion every month or more because the point and the day will come when the people who lend us that money will stop lending us that money.

"If we keep doing this for long, we will one day reach a day in this country where we will face a debt crisis, but it won't be because of the debt limit or because of gridlock in Washington; it will be because folks are no longer willing to buy America's debt, because they seriously doubt our ability to pay it back.

"It's not hyperbole. It is not an exaggeration. It is a mathematical, indisputable fact that no member of either party would dispute. There is general agreement on this, and there's general agreement that the only way to solve this problem is a combination of two things.

"Number one, this government needs to generate more revenue. And, number two, this government needs to restrict its growth in spending.

"Because as bad as the three hundred billion-a-month looks, it only gets worse from here on out for ways that I don’t have time to explain in the next 10 minutes. Suffice it to say that our economy isn't growing. It's not producing enough revenue moving forward. Meanwhile, all the programs we fund are about to explode in their growth because more people than ever are going to retire and they’re going to live longer than they've ever lived and the math just doesn't add up.

"These are facts - no one would dispute that. The debate in Washington is not even about that fact. The debate is how do we solve it, how do we generate more money for government and reduce the spending, at the same time? And I will tell you this is not a debate we will solve in the month of August. In fact, I believe it will characterize the rest of this Congress, the 2012 elections and the years that lie ahead.

"And the division on how to solve it goes to the root of the dispute that we face in America between two very different visions of America's future. By the way, one not more or less patriotic than the other. Patriotic, country-loving Americans can disagree on their future vision of what kind of country we should be. But this division, this difference of opinion, is the reason why even though this bill passed, this debate we just had is going to move forward for some time to come.

"On the one hand, there are those who believe that the job of government is deliver us economic justice, which basically means: an economy where everyone does well or as well as possibly can be done.

"There is another group that believes in the concept of economic opportunity where it’s not the government’s job to guarantee an outcome but to guarantee the opportunity to fulfill your dreams and hopes.

"One is not more moral than the other. They are two very different visions of the role of government in America. But it lies at the heart of the debate that we're having as a nation.

"And so we have to decide because Washington is divided, because America is divided on this point. And we must decide what every generation of Americans before us has decided. And that is what kind of government do we want to have and what role do we want it to have in America's future?

"And so the fault lines emerge from that. The solutions emerge from those two visions.

"For those that want to see economic justice, their solution is to raise more taxes. They believe that there are some in America that make too much money and should pay more in their taxes. They believe that our government programs can stimulate economic growth. And they believe that perhaps America no longer needs to fund or can no longer afford to fund our national defense and our military at certain levels.

"Another group believes that, in fact, our revenues should come not from more taxes but from more taxpayers. That what we need are more people being employed, more businesses being created. They'll pursue tax reform, they'll pursue regulatory reform, but ultimately we look for more revenue for government from economic growth, not from growth in taxes.

"We believe that the private sector creates these jobs, not government and not politicians. Jobs in America are created when everyday people from all walks of life start a business or expand an existing business.

"believe and we believe in a safety net program, programs that exist to help those who cannot help themselves and to help those who have tried but failed to stand up and try again, but not safety net programs that function as a way of life and believe that America's national defense and our role in the world as the strongest military that man has ever known, is still indispensable.

"These are two very different visions of America and two very different types of solutions.

"Ultimately, we may find that between these two points there may not be a middle ground. And that, in fact, as a nation and as a people, we must decide what we want the role of government to be in America, moving forward.

"So let me close by just saying this has been a unique week for me in a couple ways.

"One has been, of course, the debate that has happened. The other, my family has been here for the better part of a week, young children. We had an opportunity, today after the vote, to walk around a little bit and look at all the statues and monuments that pay tribute to our heritage as a people. It reminds us that we are not the first Americans that have been asked to choose what kind of country we want or what role of government we want in our country. It is a choice that every generation before us has had to make.

"Even in this chamber as I stand here you can sit back and absorb the history of some of the extraordinary debates that took place on this very floor, debates that went to the core and heart of what kind of country we wanted to be moving forward. And the voice of those ancients call to us even now, that remind us every generation of Americans has been called to choose clearly what kind of country they want moving forward.

"And that debate will continue. It will define the service of this Congress and for most of us that are here now.

"I pray we choose wisely. And I look forward to the months that lie ahead that we will choose and make the right choice for our future and for our people.

"With that, I yield the floor."

Tuesday, August 2, 2011


The U.S. Dept of Defense briefed the President this morning.

They told President Obama that 2 Brazilian soldiers were killed in Iraq .

To everyone's surprise, he collapsed onto his desk, head in his hands, visibly shaken, almost in tears.

Finally, he composed himself and then asked,

'Just how many is a brazilian?'

This is not surprising, since he obviously has no understanding of a trillion either.

Monday, August 1, 2011