Thursday, September 6, 2007
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
AND IM BACK...
It's been busy but the political commentary is back, not that its been gone I just haven't had time lately being so many things have been going on. So where are we now in Iraq. Well, the good news keeps pouring in. A few weeks ago (in the New York Times, of all places), an article ran by two Brookings Institute guys, a left wing think tank (think a lefty version of the Heritage Foundation, but not as successful or comprehensive), under the headline "A War We Just Might Win." Hillary herself has acknowledged the surge has been working. Of course she then said we should leave which makes no sense. "We're kicking butt, so lets leave"...great idea. Katie Couric recently got back from Iraq and noted the good news as well. Even the Washington Post has said the surge is working and that the Petraeus report is going to look good.
What does the cook left think of people on their side acknowledging their own finally admitting we are getting somewhere. Naturally, they are sweeping the evidence under the rug. They are discrediting it left and right (no pun intended). "It's all a Bush conspiracy!" they scream. Yea right. The MoveOn.org kooks have been lambasting their own for recognizing the progress (I guess being progressive doesn't mean recognizing American progress, only liberal progress (a better word for liberal progress is destructive progress)). Anytime a Democrat deviates from the liberal action line MoveOn is right there to smear and discredit them. "There's a pattern here: When John Dingell contradicted party orthodoxy on global warming and auto mileage standards this year, MoveOn ran ads in his Michigan district calling the 81-year-old Congressman "Dingellsaurus."
What kind of ideology positions themselves on the side of defeat for the United States? What kind of major political party can't allow victory, as it is bad for them politically? What kind of people are actively engaged in undermining our troops, our commander in chief, and general in the middle of not only the surge, but the war as well?
Liberalism, the far left, commie libs, and the Democrat Party, that's who.
Thank about this; victory for America is bad for them because they are so invested in defeat. Defeat of the US is good for them because it makes Bush and the big bad evil US look bad. What about victory frightens these spineless scumbags? 2008. They cannot afford a Bush victory or an American victory because they have already declared the war lost. Any turnaround is bad for them in 2008. Congress recently had a 2% approval rating on the way they are handling the war. 2%!!! Pretty low, I'd say so. And pathetic.
What does the cook left think of people on their side acknowledging their own finally admitting we are getting somewhere. Naturally, they are sweeping the evidence under the rug. They are discrediting it left and right (no pun intended). "It's all a Bush conspiracy!" they scream. Yea right. The MoveOn.org kooks have been lambasting their own for recognizing the progress (I guess being progressive doesn't mean recognizing American progress, only liberal progress (a better word for liberal progress is destructive progress)). Anytime a Democrat deviates from the liberal action line MoveOn is right there to smear and discredit them. "There's a pattern here: When John Dingell contradicted party orthodoxy on global warming and auto mileage standards this year, MoveOn ran ads in his Michigan district calling the 81-year-old Congressman "Dingellsaurus."
What kind of ideology positions themselves on the side of defeat for the United States? What kind of major political party can't allow victory, as it is bad for them politically? What kind of people are actively engaged in undermining our troops, our commander in chief, and general in the middle of not only the surge, but the war as well?
Liberalism, the far left, commie libs, and the Democrat Party, that's who.
Thank about this; victory for America is bad for them because they are so invested in defeat. Defeat of the US is good for them because it makes Bush and the big bad evil US look bad. What about victory frightens these spineless scumbags? 2008. They cannot afford a Bush victory or an American victory because they have already declared the war lost. Any turnaround is bad for them in 2008. Congress recently had a 2% approval rating on the way they are handling the war. 2%!!! Pretty low, I'd say so. And pathetic.
Monday, August 20, 2007
OH PLEASE!!! WHHAAAA!!!
"In four debates, not a single Democrat said the word, 'Islamic terrorists.' Now that is taking political correctness to extreme?"
Rudy Giuliani said that in the Republican Presidential debate a few weeks ago. How right he is. This fear of being called Islamophobic or being discriminatory drives liberals more than the fear of having innocent Americans die from radical Islam. Liberals around the world live in their little liberal bubbles, void from reality, and choose not to see radical Islam for the threat it is, has been, and will be in the future. They would rather take on the real enemies of America...Bush, Rove (even though he is gone, they will continue to fight him), Limbaugh, FOX News, Wal-Mart, ect.
In the uber-liberal mecca of England, the BBC is dropping a fictional terror attack from one of its programs to avoid offending Muslims. Liberals only care about not offending certain groups however, Muslims being one of them. I wonder if they were to give this much care to Christians. I guess last November when the BBC portrayed the evil evangelical Christians murdering Muslims they weren't too concerned with offending them. Being liberal means never having standards, but rather dumbing them down so that one group is held to a ridiculously high standard and the other is held to no standard so to stop judgements upon them.
Why is it so bad to fictionally portray something that is not fictional? The answer: It's not. However, liberalism, and the psychosis they have that keeps them severely disconnected from reality makes them feel this way all in the name of not discriminating. The problem isn't Islam, it is radical Islam, and sadly, I can fully understand why liberals would not not want to portray it accurately. Why? Informed people, especially on terrorism, is death to their entire mind-set on the issue. They spend their days either denying there is any threat, accurately don't think there is any threat, and trying to convince other of that as well.
Rudy Giuliani said that in the Republican Presidential debate a few weeks ago. How right he is. This fear of being called Islamophobic or being discriminatory drives liberals more than the fear of having innocent Americans die from radical Islam. Liberals around the world live in their little liberal bubbles, void from reality, and choose not to see radical Islam for the threat it is, has been, and will be in the future. They would rather take on the real enemies of America...Bush, Rove (even though he is gone, they will continue to fight him), Limbaugh, FOX News, Wal-Mart, ect.
In the uber-liberal mecca of England, the BBC is dropping a fictional terror attack from one of its programs to avoid offending Muslims. Liberals only care about not offending certain groups however, Muslims being one of them. I wonder if they were to give this much care to Christians. I guess last November when the BBC portrayed the evil evangelical Christians murdering Muslims they weren't too concerned with offending them. Being liberal means never having standards, but rather dumbing them down so that one group is held to a ridiculously high standard and the other is held to no standard so to stop judgements upon them.
Why is it so bad to fictionally portray something that is not fictional? The answer: It's not. However, liberalism, and the psychosis they have that keeps them severely disconnected from reality makes them feel this way all in the name of not discriminating. The problem isn't Islam, it is radical Islam, and sadly, I can fully understand why liberals would not not want to portray it accurately. Why? Informed people, especially on terrorism, is death to their entire mind-set on the issue. They spend their days either denying there is any threat, accurately don't think there is any threat, and trying to convince other of that as well.
Friday, August 17, 2007
THE GREAT ETHANOL FOLLY
Our great savior will not come in the form of liquid corn, a.k.a. ethanol. Just about every environmental wacko, Democrat, and the President himself have conned the public into believing it will not only help us reduce our dependency on foreign oil but help gas prices go down as well. It goes without saying that gas has gone up over the past few years while mandates on ethanol being a decent percentage of the gas you put in your car is as well. Rich Lowry explains:
It is basic economics; if there is a certain amount of corn being grown and growers can't keep up with the demand pressed by the government, the price is going to go up. Corn is one of the worlds most important crops, and if a large potion of it cannot be used for human consumption but rather car consumption, it seems like a waste. The amount of corn needed to be grown to meet the governments needs would have to encompass the entire northeast. Unless we become a nation of corn growers rather than cities, people, industrialization, and progress, their mandate isn't possible.
Consider the unintended consequences of their good intentions. Corn goes up in price so does gasoline being a percentage of gas must be ethanol based. Pretty straight forward. High gas prices means shipping becomes more expensive and our products go up. If corn goes up so does the price of tortillas, a main feeding source for Mexicans and poor people in general. We are affected with high pop corn and corn syrup prices. High corn syrup prices means that a lot of the sweets we eat will go up as well. Many animals are fed using corn based foods. If their feed goes up so does all sorts of meat, from chicken to beef and the other white meat. Produce will go up as well. Job losses would not be a surprise as a result of this either.
Getting off foreign oil is a major concern, but ethanol is not the answer. The quicker the government realizes that and comes up with ideas baring more tangible results, we will all be better off...
"We will plant 90 million acres of it this year, up 15 percent from last year. Still, the price of a bushel of corn jumped from $2 to $3 in the past year, thanks to the demand for more ethanol. This is increasing the price of corn-based foods - tortillas have become as much as twice as expensive in Mexico - and meat, poultry and dairy products, since livestock traditionally has been fed corn. "In some parts of the country," Jeff Goodell writes in Rolling Stone, "hog farmers now find it cheaper to fatten their animals on trail mix, french fries and chocolate bars."
It is basic economics; if there is a certain amount of corn being grown and growers can't keep up with the demand pressed by the government, the price is going to go up. Corn is one of the worlds most important crops, and if a large potion of it cannot be used for human consumption but rather car consumption, it seems like a waste. The amount of corn needed to be grown to meet the governments needs would have to encompass the entire northeast. Unless we become a nation of corn growers rather than cities, people, industrialization, and progress, their mandate isn't possible.
Consider the unintended consequences of their good intentions. Corn goes up in price so does gasoline being a percentage of gas must be ethanol based. Pretty straight forward. High gas prices means shipping becomes more expensive and our products go up. If corn goes up so does the price of tortillas, a main feeding source for Mexicans and poor people in general. We are affected with high pop corn and corn syrup prices. High corn syrup prices means that a lot of the sweets we eat will go up as well. Many animals are fed using corn based foods. If their feed goes up so does all sorts of meat, from chicken to beef and the other white meat. Produce will go up as well. Job losses would not be a surprise as a result of this either.
Getting off foreign oil is a major concern, but ethanol is not the answer. The quicker the government realizes that and comes up with ideas baring more tangible results, we will all be better off...
Thursday, August 16, 2007
You Wanna Talk About Priorities..
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) should really start being more concerned about people as well. Or maybe another group should be started; People for the Ethical Treatment of People (PETP).
HEADLINE: PETA slams "shocking" Hamas TV clip
"Animal rights group PETA said on Wednesday it would protest to a Hamas-run TV channel after a clip from a program showing animals being abused appeared on YouTube, prompting scores of complaints from viewers worldwide." You can't make this stuff up. So it isn't INHUMANE treatment of HUMANS by Hamas which outrages PETA, it is only the poor treatment of animals. Now do not misunderstand, the treatment of animals in this YouTube clip is disgusting, however their blind eye turned to human rights abuses is absolutely pathetic.
"Any lessons meant to be contained in this segment are almost certainly lost on most children, who are more likely to imitate people they see treating animals cruelly rather than understand this behavior is wrong," I assume the Palestinians medias constant anti-Jewish rhetoric, TV shows indoctrinating children to hate Jews and America, and Holocaust denial don't constitute teaching children wrong behavior to PETA or the writer of this Reuters article.
I guess "shocking" doesn't constitute the sewage in the streets of Gaza, executing captives, killing people not involved in hostilities, engaging in gun battles near Palestinian hospitals, shooting rockets into innocent Israeli cities, no clean water, their constitution which mandates the destruction of Israel and the list goes on. No, no, no; be mad and condemn Hamas because of their mistreatment of animals. I'll tell ya, these libs really have their priorities straight, don't they.
Note that not once in this article was the human rights abuses of Hamas mentioned tying in to their animal abuses. Not once.
HEADLINE: PETA slams "shocking" Hamas TV clip
"Animal rights group PETA said on Wednesday it would protest to a Hamas-run TV channel after a clip from a program showing animals being abused appeared on YouTube, prompting scores of complaints from viewers worldwide." You can't make this stuff up. So it isn't INHUMANE treatment of HUMANS by Hamas which outrages PETA, it is only the poor treatment of animals. Now do not misunderstand, the treatment of animals in this YouTube clip is disgusting, however their blind eye turned to human rights abuses is absolutely pathetic.
"Any lessons meant to be contained in this segment are almost certainly lost on most children, who are more likely to imitate people they see treating animals cruelly rather than understand this behavior is wrong," I assume the Palestinians medias constant anti-Jewish rhetoric, TV shows indoctrinating children to hate Jews and America, and Holocaust denial don't constitute teaching children wrong behavior to PETA or the writer of this Reuters article.
I guess "shocking" doesn't constitute the sewage in the streets of Gaza, executing captives, killing people not involved in hostilities, engaging in gun battles near Palestinian hospitals, shooting rockets into innocent Israeli cities, no clean water, their constitution which mandates the destruction of Israel and the list goes on. No, no, no; be mad and condemn Hamas because of their mistreatment of animals. I'll tell ya, these libs really have their priorities straight, don't they.
Note that not once in this article was the human rights abuses of Hamas mentioned tying in to their animal abuses. Not once.
Monday, August 6, 2007
APPARENTLY COOKING FOOD IS ABNORMAL NOW
Newsday, which I have been told is a right wing publication (note the sarcasm), posted this article in their Sunday edition entitled Raw Refined: Dining with foodies who don't cook but go gourmet. I have to give them credit though because as soon as I saw the title it had me very interested. I can sum up the articles message with one line said early on: "We were born to eat this way. We're the only life form on this planet that heats their food. We're only now starting to walk forward in the way we should eat."Did you get that? We have devolved because we cook food. And don't think for a second there aren't some commy libs out there who would love to ban cooking food. I am willing to bet some of these wackos are. This, in turn, would lead to ultra veganism and having the kook (no pun intended) fringe animal rights people run the government. Not to mention to obvious global warming implications of heat and smoke going into the sky. But I digress.
"No longer just a fringe vegan diet featuring bland preparations of vegetables, fruits and nuts, the raw food movement has gone gourmet, tapping the same creativity that's revitalized mainstream cuisine." What is this writer talking about? Not cooking food and never eating any meat or products that comes from animals is as fringe as it gets! You don't find out until the very end of the article that there is one actual raw restaurant in Manhattan and the raw food group the writer is talking about has only 60 members. Doesn't really sound like "the movement" has taken off, eh?
I also have to object to the writer using the phrase "raw foodies" throughout the article (used five times, 6 including the title). All she is trying to do is make this weirdo group sound hip so maybe you'll want to be apart of their 60's leftover, pot smoking, pimple-faced fun. Now, let me be clear that I don't give a rats ass what these kooks do, so long as they don't start forcing me to eat the way they do, or make me feel guilty because I eat meat. As long as I can make fun of how ridiculous they are and how the writer of this article is trying to marginalize them, I'll be good.
Bermuda for a week. Have a good one!
Sunday, August 5, 2007
3 GREAT QUOTES + IMPORTANT ARTICLES
"Now, what kind of political leaders position themselves that way so that they only win when their country loses? What kind of brains do they have to position themselves in such a way so that when we make progress, their political aspirations are diminished? They're the ones that created this situation. They've aligned themselves with the enemy. They continue to align themselves with the enemy. They won't admit it, obviously. The enemy kills more soldiers, their spokesmen here in the US are the Democrats. When we kill more of the enemy, the Democrats are silent, and they say nothing. But when we have reports of another IED or pictures of a car on fire, then the Democrats assume the role of media PR spokespeople for Al-Qaeda. So the two-track Democrat strategy in play now: lose the war and cripple the presidency. Lose the war by undermining the armed forces, including their funding, cripple the presidency by unleashing all these investigations and prosecutions of the president's closest aides. And note, none of this, folks, none of it, not one part of it is intended to help or strengthen the country. Just the opposite."
-Rush Limbaugh, speaking on how victory is bad for the Democrat agenda.
"In four debates, not a single Democrat said the word, 'Islamic terrorists.' Now that is taking political correctness to extreme?"
-Rudy Giuliani
“The Democrats will only support the war in Iraq when we invent green weaponry”
-Dennis Miller
-Rush Limbaugh, speaking on how victory is bad for the Democrat agenda.
"In four debates, not a single Democrat said the word, 'Islamic terrorists.' Now that is taking political correctness to extreme?"
-Rudy Giuliani
“The Democrats will only support the war in Iraq when we invent green weaponry”
-Dennis Miller
ARTICLES
- Global Warming Propaganda Factory - Christopher J. Alleva, The American Thinker
- The Defeatists are in Retreat - William Kristol, Weekly Standard
- A Free-Market Cure for U.S. Health-Care - Rudy Giuliani, Boston Globe
- A War We Just Might Win - Michael O'Hanlon & Kenneth Pollack, NY Times
- Left Blames Bush for Bridge Collapse - Rush Limbaugh, RushLimbaugh.com
- The House Energy Bill - Ben Lieberman, The Heritage Foundation
JUST A THOUGH: ID4
I was watching the movie Independence Day today and something occurred to me: President Thomas J. Whitmore (played by Bill Pullman) had to be a Republican. His party was not mentioned in the movie, and although it was probably written by a bunch of libs, they inadvertently made him a conservative. Here's why...
Exhibit A: He is tough against a ruthless enemy willing to kill anyone and everyone that does not fit their sick twisted ideology. He was willing to use the full force of the United States Military against this enemy and he even used surveillance to monitor their every move. The enemy did not frighten him and he was steadfast in his efforts to defeat them. He did not compromise his morals to due pressure for his constituents to become and linguine-spined puss.
Exhibit B: Jasmine Dunbrow, played by Vivica A. Fox, was a black, female (single-mother), stripper. She said jokingly to the first lady that she "voted for the other guy" in the previous election. Now, who overwhelmingly gets the black vote, as well as the single mother vote? Democrats do. They also get the stripper vote but that's another story. There is no way she voted for President Whitmore.
Exhibit C: He wanted to stop illegal aliens from crossing the border.
Exhibit D: Look at this speech he gives before the climax of the movie. I can see Reagan, Bush, and any of the top Republican Presidential candidates (especially Rudy) saying this. I could never see Hillary, Edwards, Obama, or any other Democrat candidate saying it. It really is quite a good speech. Inspiring, uplifting, installing a can-do attitude into his people, his nation, the world...
It really gives me chills. We are literally in the fight of our lives and it is the worlds fight, not just ours. This fight against radical Islam is not going away anytime soon. We need to buck up and be steadfast, optimistic, and know that the American spirit prevails every time we are united, under one flag, with liberty, against an enemy trying to take it away. We should be living everyday like it is Independence Day, realizing the greatness of this nation and realizing defending it is worth the fight.
Exhibit A: He is tough against a ruthless enemy willing to kill anyone and everyone that does not fit their sick twisted ideology. He was willing to use the full force of the United States Military against this enemy and he even used surveillance to monitor their every move. The enemy did not frighten him and he was steadfast in his efforts to defeat them. He did not compromise his morals to due pressure for his constituents to become and linguine-spined puss.
Exhibit B: Jasmine Dunbrow, played by Vivica A. Fox, was a black, female (single-mother), stripper. She said jokingly to the first lady that she "voted for the other guy" in the previous election. Now, who overwhelmingly gets the black vote, as well as the single mother vote? Democrats do. They also get the stripper vote but that's another story. There is no way she voted for President Whitmore.
Exhibit C: He wanted to stop illegal aliens from crossing the border.
Exhibit D: Look at this speech he gives before the climax of the movie. I can see Reagan, Bush, and any of the top Republican Presidential candidates (especially Rudy) saying this. I could never see Hillary, Edwards, Obama, or any other Democrat candidate saying it. It really is quite a good speech. Inspiring, uplifting, installing a can-do attitude into his people, his nation, the world...
Good morning. In less than an hour, an aircraft from here will join others from around the world. And you will be launching the largest aerial battle in this history of mankind. Mankind -- that word should have new meaning for all of us today. We can't be consumed by our petty differences anymore. We will be united in our common interests. Perhaps its fate that today is the 4th of July, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom, not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution -- but from annihilation. We're fighting for our right to live, to exist. And should we win the day, the 4th of July will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day when the world declared in one voice:
We will not go quietly into the night!
We will not vanish without a fight!
We're going to live on!
We're going to survive!Today, we celebrate our Independence Day!
It really gives me chills. We are literally in the fight of our lives and it is the worlds fight, not just ours. This fight against radical Islam is not going away anytime soon. We need to buck up and be steadfast, optimistic, and know that the American spirit prevails every time we are united, under one flag, with liberty, against an enemy trying to take it away. We should be living everyday like it is Independence Day, realizing the greatness of this nation and realizing defending it is worth the fight.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
SHOE IS ON THE RIGHT FOOT
In a previous post (July 20th) I wrote that "most 'debate' now consists of an obligatory cliché one liner followed by a character assassination." This is most true with liberals. The response you'll get is one that basically says you should shut up and you don't count if you dare question their ideas or intent. There won't be a substantive argument on the rebound. No, no, no, you will literally get an obligatory cliché one liner followed by a character assassination. Something to discredit you based purely on emotion and name-calling rather than picking apart the essence of the argument you bring up.
First, the last thing Newsday has is a right leaning bias. Anyone with a half brain can look at their editorial page for a few months and see it is left leaning. Which is fine, their circulation is down the tubes anyway; another indicator it is left leaning (NYT, LAT, BG, etc all down as well). Secondly, O'Reilly has not discussed Obamas foreign policy "ideas." If he hasn't discussed it, how could I steal his ideas? Lastly, I don't need O'Reilly or Limbaugh or even Hannity to tell me that invading Pakistan and taking nukes off the table is a bad idea. It's common sense (or at least I thought so).
Comments about my previous post (August 3rd), I was told that I sounded uneducated. Ouch. How dare I question Obamas way-out-there foreign policy ideas. Why did I sound uneducated? Well, I don't know actually. Nothing of substance was brought up. My arguments weren't picked apart and Obamas weren't defended. I was then told to stop reading Newsday and O'Reilly talking points to form my own opinions.
First, the last thing Newsday has is a right leaning bias. Anyone with a half brain can look at their editorial page for a few months and see it is left leaning. Which is fine, their circulation is down the tubes anyway; another indicator it is left leaning (NYT, LAT, BG, etc all down as well). Secondly, O'Reilly has not discussed Obamas foreign policy "ideas." If he hasn't discussed it, how could I steal his ideas? Lastly, I don't need O'Reilly or Limbaugh or even Hannity to tell me that invading Pakistan and taking nukes off the table is a bad idea. It's common sense (or at least I thought so).So the obligatory one liner: YOUR TAKING O'REILLY TALKING POINTS!!!
The character assassination: YOU SOUND UNEDUCATED!!!
With no proof to back it up. Good day.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Barry's Trifecta of Naivety
He is just too damn inexperienced to run this country. This trifecta of naive comments clearly shows it. Barack Obama first said he wants to meet with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and Syria immediately after becoming President (Lord help us). I want someone to cite for me an example in the past where diplomacy has REALLY worked. Where negotiation and appeasing the enemy has led to peace and offset the possibility of war. You can’t find any!
Fire needs to fight fire, and America’s flame burns greater than any terrorists will ever. It’s like asking the question, “Name for me one thing the government runs that’s done right?” Well, other than the military (when the left doesn’t emasculate it), the answer is always nothing! Are we really supposed to sit at the table with Ahmadinejad and force him to believe the Holocaust happened or that threatening to blow Israel off the map really isn’t the peace loving rhetoric he claims to be articulating?
Obama then said he would consider invading Pakistan. For those of you out of the know, Pakistan and Musharraf lead government is a great ally to the US. This is a guy who has escaped five assassination attempts, has disarmed terror operations trying to destabilize the country, and keep the government on offense against terror. Pakistani officials responded to the Obama comments. "It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense." Amen brother.
Lastly, Barry Hussein would never consider using nuclear weapons, which is ridiculously irresponsible to openly tell the enemy in the middle of a war. Wait a second… he would consider using them. Hold on again. What’s that? Oh, he wouldn’t use them. Obama was responding to a question by the Associated Press about whether there was any circumstance where he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Make up your mind man! This is kind of a serious question and his hesitant and ambivalent stance on the issue is worth noting for all you people having Obamagasms.
On a personal note, I met radio talk show host Laura Ingraham today at WABC and it was pretty sweet. She is very nice, brilliant and, quite frankly, a babe...
Fire needs to fight fire, and America’s flame burns greater than any terrorists will ever. It’s like asking the question, “Name for me one thing the government runs that’s done right?” Well, other than the military (when the left doesn’t emasculate it), the answer is always nothing! Are we really supposed to sit at the table with Ahmadinejad and force him to believe the Holocaust happened or that threatening to blow Israel off the map really isn’t the peace loving rhetoric he claims to be articulating?
Obama then said he would consider invading Pakistan. For those of you out of the know, Pakistan and Musharraf lead government is a great ally to the US. This is a guy who has escaped five assassination attempts, has disarmed terror operations trying to destabilize the country, and keep the government on offense against terror. Pakistani officials responded to the Obama comments. "It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense." Amen brother.
Lastly, Barry Hussein would never consider using nuclear weapons, which is ridiculously irresponsible to openly tell the enemy in the middle of a war. Wait a second… he would consider using them. Hold on again. What’s that? Oh, he wouldn’t use them. Obama was responding to a question by the Associated Press about whether there was any circumstance where he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Make up your mind man! This is kind of a serious question and his hesitant and ambivalent stance on the issue is worth noting for all you people having Obamagasms.
On a personal note, I met radio talk show host Laura Ingraham today at WABC and it was pretty sweet. She is very nice, brilliant and, quite frankly, a babe...
Thursday, August 2, 2007
TRAGEDY, HEROISM, AND THE BLAME GAME
I’m sure by now you have heard about the collapsed portion of the Interstate 35W bridge over the Mississippi River. Right off the back, my thoughts and prayers go to the families of those involved and larger community in Minneapolis. This truly is a tragedy that should not happen in America. "This is not a rescue operation any longer," said Chief Jim Clack of the Minneapolis Fire Department. "It's a recovery operation, which means we move slower and more deliberately." The death toll is currently at four, is expected to rise, and more than 30 people are currently missing.
This terrible event does highlight, however, the love and respect Americans have for not only other American’s, but also human life in general. On 9/11 our firefighters, police officers, medics, etc showed this by running into the Word Trade Center. Rather than saving themselves, they ran INTO the buildings to save others. The same occurred over the past few days in Minneapolis.
Emergency workers were there immediately to help the injured and indigent. They saved people from the collapsed bridge as well as people being carried down the mighty Mississippi. Americans helping Americans was fully highlighted. People helped each other get out of their cars, moved debris off of them, gave them food and water to hold them over. Students on a school bus helped each other kick out an emergency window as teachers and other motorists brought them to safety. “There was a great deal of goodness going on there,” said Jay Reeves, a Red Cross worker. “People were immediately starting to help the children off the bus, lowering them over the side of the bridge.”
…Lastly (and this needs to be pointed out), is the Bush Derangement syndrome rapidly occurring. Much like he blew up the WTC, the levies in New Orleans, is responsible for global warming, terrorism, and dog bites, Bush is to blame for this terrible event happening. NPR low-ratings man Ed Shultz said “...the only reason Bush is talking about fatalities is because he didn’t give MN enough money to maintain the bridge.” Naturally, local politicians, city officials, and road inspectors play no role. Or forget about the fact that Congress appropriates the money. Its just Bush!!! Pathetic. And Democrats want to end the 'politics of personal destruction?’ Yea right. They invented it! Check out more of the Democrats taking no more than a few hours to politicize this here. Absolutely pathetic.
This terrible event does highlight, however, the love and respect Americans have for not only other American’s, but also human life in general. On 9/11 our firefighters, police officers, medics, etc showed this by running into the Word Trade Center. Rather than saving themselves, they ran INTO the buildings to save others. The same occurred over the past few days in Minneapolis.
Emergency workers were there immediately to help the injured and indigent. They saved people from the collapsed bridge as well as people being carried down the mighty Mississippi. Americans helping Americans was fully highlighted. People helped each other get out of their cars, moved debris off of them, gave them food and water to hold them over. Students on a school bus helped each other kick out an emergency window as teachers and other motorists brought them to safety. “There was a great deal of goodness going on there,” said Jay Reeves, a Red Cross worker. “People were immediately starting to help the children off the bus, lowering them over the side of the bridge.”
…Lastly (and this needs to be pointed out), is the Bush Derangement syndrome rapidly occurring. Much like he blew up the WTC, the levies in New Orleans, is responsible for global warming, terrorism, and dog bites, Bush is to blame for this terrible event happening. NPR low-ratings man Ed Shultz said “...the only reason Bush is talking about fatalities is because he didn’t give MN enough money to maintain the bridge.” Naturally, local politicians, city officials, and road inspectors play no role. Or forget about the fact that Congress appropriates the money. Its just Bush!!! Pathetic. And Democrats want to end the 'politics of personal destruction?’ Yea right. They invented it! Check out more of the Democrats taking no more than a few hours to politicize this here. Absolutely pathetic.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
FINE...RUIN THE MOMENT
The UK Daily Mail has posted an article with the most detailed pictures of earth ever seen. They really are spectacular. Of course, leave it to some liberals to ruin the moment with comments about the article. I'm not taking issue with their right to say what they want, however I am taking a look at the bigger liberal picture of how miserable and guilty these people feel:"From a distance" you can't see the rubbish, hatred, inequality and sheer stupidity that mar this beautiful globe.- Mike Randall, Worcester, England
This is typical liberalism; gloom and doom, people suck, animals are pristine, humans ruin the planet, global warming, socialism would rid the earth of inequality. These people see the bad in everything. They are literally miserable and will do anything they can to spread that misery. That's liberalism (socialism). There's doom unless of course it is some lib program where good intentions are met, not taking a look at the unintended consequences of their 'good intentions.' Their good intentions make themselves feel better and utopia has been fulfilled. And here is another one:
Something so beautiful and we are destroying it! Sad, very sad, we don't deserve to lease the planet!- Jeff Rudd, Drogheda, Ireland.
Ohh noo. WHAAAAA!!! I feel soooo guilty. You should too. Thats what they'll say at least. Global warming and all the pollution (America's fault of course) is going to kill us. We have 10 years left to live (says AL Gore). Manhattan is going to be underwater! Oh, Please!!!
The earth is beautiful. Savor the momet. Enjoy it. Take a gander at God's great creation. Be happy. There's nothing wrong with it!
Monday, July 30, 2007
MIND POLICE
This article refers to a 23-year-old man who was arrested Friday on hate-crime charges after he threw a Quran in a toilet at Pace University on two separate occasions, police said.
Now, as objectionable as throwing someone’s Koran in a toilet may be…IT IS NOT A CRIME. This person did not punch someone or shoot someone or harass someone and THEN throw the Koran in the toilet. It’s called free speech, and it looks like this person did nothing wrong. We can however burn the American flag in the name of free speech and that’s protected of course. Liberals always scream separation of church and state yet anything that might get some Muslims mad is somehow exempt from that rule. Like how it is not allowed to pray in public schools but if you want to put a footbath for Muslims at a taxpayer funded college, well that’s cool.
What is a “hate crime” anyway? It’s the thought police, it’s a silence of free speech, and it’s using the word ‘hate’ have people think twice before they say what they want to. Dare I say sometimes hate is justified? I hate people who rape children. I hate murders. I hate how the Democrats are trying to secure defeat in Iraq. That’s warranted and protected, isn’t it? Yes, or course it is. Unless you talk against a Muslim. Again, they are exempt from the rules.
Oh, and why is it not a “hate crime” when anything Catholic is defaced? Remember the cross in the jar of urine. Or how about the “painting” of Mary defaced with dung? Oh, that’s right, it’s in the name of art! Silly me, art is great free expression and cannot be condemned because of the gray area art encompasses. Dare you criticize that, well, you just don’t get the complexity of the message the artist is sending. We are awaiting what CAIR thinks about this; somehow I don’t think they’ll take the side of free speech...
Now, as objectionable as throwing someone’s Koran in a toilet may be…IT IS NOT A CRIME. This person did not punch someone or shoot someone or harass someone and THEN throw the Koran in the toilet. It’s called free speech, and it looks like this person did nothing wrong. We can however burn the American flag in the name of free speech and that’s protected of course. Liberals always scream separation of church and state yet anything that might get some Muslims mad is somehow exempt from that rule. Like how it is not allowed to pray in public schools but if you want to put a footbath for Muslims at a taxpayer funded college, well that’s cool.
What is a “hate crime” anyway? It’s the thought police, it’s a silence of free speech, and it’s using the word ‘hate’ have people think twice before they say what they want to. Dare I say sometimes hate is justified? I hate people who rape children. I hate murders. I hate how the Democrats are trying to secure defeat in Iraq. That’s warranted and protected, isn’t it? Yes, or course it is. Unless you talk against a Muslim. Again, they are exempt from the rules.
Oh, and why is it not a “hate crime” when anything Catholic is defaced? Remember the cross in the jar of urine. Or how about the “painting” of Mary defaced with dung? Oh, that’s right, it’s in the name of art! Silly me, art is great free expression and cannot be condemned because of the gray area art encompasses. Dare you criticize that, well, you just don’t get the complexity of the message the artist is sending. We are awaiting what CAIR thinks about this; somehow I don’t think they’ll take the side of free speech...
Friday, July 27, 2007
QUEEN BEE BEAUTIFUL
Queen Bee Pelosi is the 4th most beautiful person on Capitol Hill according to thehill.com.Name: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.)
Age: 67Hometown: Baltimore, Md.
Political Party: DemocratD
ating Status: Married to Paul Pelosi
It is rather uncomfortable calling the 67-year-old House Speaker HouseNancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.), mother of five and grandmother of six, “hot.” So we let
others decide. There is a Facebook.com group called “I can’t say why, but I
kinda think Nancy Pelosi is cute.” There’s another group there, too, but its
name is too crass to print.Moreover, Pelosi has become a fashion icon in
colorful Armani skirt-suits.Robin Givhan, the Washington Post fashion critic,
earlier this year wrote, “She looks polished and tasteful … dignified and
serious [and] she also happens to look quite good.” A copy of a Chinese Sea
Pearl ring that Pelosi has been wearing sells on eBay. Opening bid: 88 cents.No
question that wealth, posh homes and a loving family have helped smooth the
rough edges of life.Nevertheless, it is puzzling just how the first female
Speaker of the House stays so fit. She is always working and traveling, rarely
exercises and reportedly noshes on Ghirardelli mint chocolates. Maybe Pelosi was
right when she told The New York Times, “Ice cream for breakfast is a good
thing.”
I’ll tell, I didn’t know she is 67. I guess for her age she looks good. This will probably make Hilary jealous though and Bill might have a new prospect. We’ll see!
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
THIS IS GETTING RIDICULOUS!!!
Symbolism over substance at its best! Lizzy Edwards gives up tangerines in order to fight global warming. "We've been moving back to 'buy local,'" Mrs. Edwards said, outlining a trade policy that "acknowledges the carbon footprint" of transporting fruit. The Politico article is posted here.Lizzy talked about 'sacrifice' in order to fight global warming. Apparently giving up tangerines is a tough decision for her. Perhaps tougher than realizing her husband is more of a woman than her? I bet you there are some commy libs out there that would love to institute a tangerine ban. That is when I say, "Get the hell away from me. If I want to eat tangerines I am eating a tangerine. And if I want to take a tangerine and not eat it and let it rot, I'll do that too. Stay out of my business!"
The sick part is that she really believes this is going to have a huge impact to save the fever-ridden planet. Oye, where does it end!
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
SOPHISTRY!!! THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK
This is a quote from Senetor John Kerry (D, MA) from this article from the AP:
The Dems now say al-Qaida was never in Iraq prior to 9/11 and because of that there was no justification for going to war (never mind the fact that the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly for the “Use of Force in Iraq”). Lets assume for one second Kerry and the other Dems are right (and their not); wouldn’t the fact that al-Quida is now in Iraq justify being there? Isn't that the justification they wanted? Doesn’t that mean Iraq is of some importance since al-Qaida is in fact fighting us there?
Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Al-Qaida's number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri has himself declared so! He has also said, "A US bill calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq is proof of Washington's defeat." Someone in the media should really ask Senate Majority Leader Harry "American Gothic" Reid if he agrees with Zawahiri's comments. My answer is that he does! Mr. Reid is the one who has said "the war is lost" on multiple occasions!
Anyone who says the actions of this Democrat Congress (whose approval rating is around 15% mind you, lower than the Presidents) is not emboldening our enemies is smoking something the Dems wish was legal. Also, what is this “principal killer of American forces in Iraq” line? If al-Qaida isn’t the number one killer, it means some other group is. Again, his justification for leaving can be easily refuted. Well Mr. Kerry, if the largest killer of our military is what you want, then let’s continue to find and kill them all as well! Give victory a chance!
In Washington, Sen. John Kerry, said Bush "is trying to scare the American people into believing that al Qaida is the rationale for continuing the war in Iraq." But Kerry said Bush presented no new evidence to back that up, and added: "The president is picking the wrong rationale for this war. Al-Qaida is not the principal killer of American forces in Iraq."
The Dems now say al-Qaida was never in Iraq prior to 9/11 and because of that there was no justification for going to war (never mind the fact that the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly for the “Use of Force in Iraq”). Lets assume for one second Kerry and the other Dems are right (and their not); wouldn’t the fact that al-Quida is now in Iraq justify being there? Isn't that the justification they wanted? Doesn’t that mean Iraq is of some importance since al-Qaida is in fact fighting us there?
Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Al-Qaida's number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri has himself declared so! He has also said, "A US bill calling for troop withdrawal from Iraq is proof of Washington's defeat." Someone in the media should really ask Senate Majority Leader Harry "American Gothic" Reid if he agrees with Zawahiri's comments. My answer is that he does! Mr. Reid is the one who has said "the war is lost" on multiple occasions!
Anyone who says the actions of this Democrat Congress (whose approval rating is around 15% mind you, lower than the Presidents) is not emboldening our enemies is smoking something the Dems wish was legal. Also, what is this “principal killer of American forces in Iraq” line? If al-Qaida isn’t the number one killer, it means some other group is. Again, his justification for leaving can be easily refuted. Well Mr. Kerry, if the largest killer of our military is what you want, then let’s continue to find and kill them all as well! Give victory a chance!
Sunday, July 22, 2007
OUR ENEMIES ARE THE SAVAGES
I refer you to this article that explains how Iran is cracking down on ‘slack dressing that targets both men and women whose clothing and haircuts are deemed to be unIslamic.’ "The police will act against those whose trousers are too short, have skin-tight coats, shirts with Western logos and Western hairstyles." Women in Iran are already obliged to cover all bodily contours and their heads but in recent years many have pushed the boundaries by showing off bare ankles and fashionably styled hair beneath their headscarves.
Now, let me ask you, where are all these do-gooder, good intentioned lib groups that claim to be advocates for minorities and the weak because they are oh so open minded and tolerant? Take this particular issue and ask yourself, where is the National Organization for Women (NOW)? We should also ask why they (NOW) don’t rail against rappers who treat women as objects and hoes rather than people (keep in mind all these rappers are libs too). Well, I’ll tell you why NOW won’t go after this and fight for what’s right. The last thing they want to be called is discriminatory, or Islamophobic, or racist; so they stay out of the fight and target America for the obviously unjust place it is. I mean, c’mon, women can’t do anything here; vote, work, go out in public without being covered head to toe. Oh that’s right, men and women aren’t paid exactly equally so we must suck big time, eh? Of course, America must be so closed minded, intolerant, and overly traditional.
GET REAL.
Societies are not created equal, and these ‘advocacy groups’ try to dummy down America and the individual rights it offers to get it on an equal playing field with other countries, i.e. the Middle Eastern ultra-intolerant Islamic countries. This is the basic premise of multi-culturalism; having every country/ideology (except conservatism)/culture as equal entities. Also, why isn’t GLAAD in this fight against radical Islam? In most Middle Eastern countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, a homosexual male or female is automatically executed inhumanely (stoning, hanging, ect) just for being gay! But of course, it is we in America who are really the intolerant ones. I mean, gay marriage isn’t allowed in all 50 states. We must be inherently evil, right? Again, they don’t want to be called is discriminatory, or Islamophobic, or racist. In lib world, being called any -ory or -phobic word is the worst thing imaginable.
It really frosts me when I see liberals and Democrats and their selective moral outrage. It seems that if America isn’t to blame, there isn't any point of bringing it up. Any atrocity the enemy commits (yes John Edwards, there is an enemy, believe it or not), they are marginalized because ‘they are just an oppressed minority and if it weren’t for Bush going after them they wouldn’t want to hurt us. “They are mothers and father too,” said the Rosie (the previous line was said in a very unmanly wuss voice)’
It bugs the hell out of me the lib media will not, absolutely will not, report enemy atrocities, but when a few naked terrorists are put in a pile we are somehow worse than them (the media also seldom reports that the soldiers who did this at Abu Ghraib were punished for their actions, and rightfully so. We at least realize when we are wrong and rectify it, unlike the terrorists). Our men have been beheaded and Iraqi women and children raped by Al Qaeda, but when was the last time you saw media outrage at that? Oh that’s right John Murtha, only our soldiers “rape women and children in the dark of night. Or how about this:
That’s right, the enemy bakes kids and serves them to their parents and this isn't on the front page of the New York Slimes or any of the major letter (ABC, NBC, CBS) or cable networks? Who are the savages, the unjust ones, and the animals cowering by hiding in caves? It’s not us. On 9-11 our brave servicemen didn't run out of the WTC, they ran into it. We are a brave nation and challenge evil. Liberals seldom realize this. If they really want to wage a battle against intolerance, radical Islam is the place to start. Their hatred of Bush and America blinds them to the point where they, the so-called ‘purveyors of morality’ won’t even condemn baking children. If it weren’t for talk radio, this story along with countless others would have never been seen.
Now, let me ask you, where are all these do-gooder, good intentioned lib groups that claim to be advocates for minorities and the weak because they are oh so open minded and tolerant? Take this particular issue and ask yourself, where is the National Organization for Women (NOW)? We should also ask why they (NOW) don’t rail against rappers who treat women as objects and hoes rather than people (keep in mind all these rappers are libs too). Well, I’ll tell you why NOW won’t go after this and fight for what’s right. The last thing they want to be called is discriminatory, or Islamophobic, or racist; so they stay out of the fight and target America for the obviously unjust place it is. I mean, c’mon, women can’t do anything here; vote, work, go out in public without being covered head to toe. Oh that’s right, men and women aren’t paid exactly equally so we must suck big time, eh? Of course, America must be so closed minded, intolerant, and overly traditional.
GET REAL.
Societies are not created equal, and these ‘advocacy groups’ try to dummy down America and the individual rights it offers to get it on an equal playing field with other countries, i.e. the Middle Eastern ultra-intolerant Islamic countries. This is the basic premise of multi-culturalism; having every country/ideology (except conservatism)/culture as equal entities. Also, why isn’t GLAAD in this fight against radical Islam? In most Middle Eastern countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, a homosexual male or female is automatically executed inhumanely (stoning, hanging, ect) just for being gay! But of course, it is we in America who are really the intolerant ones. I mean, gay marriage isn’t allowed in all 50 states. We must be inherently evil, right? Again, they don’t want to be called is discriminatory, or Islamophobic, or racist. In lib world, being called any -ory or -phobic word is the worst thing imaginable.
It really frosts me when I see liberals and Democrats and their selective moral outrage. It seems that if America isn’t to blame, there isn't any point of bringing it up. Any atrocity the enemy commits (yes John Edwards, there is an enemy, believe it or not), they are marginalized because ‘they are just an oppressed minority and if it weren’t for Bush going after them they wouldn’t want to hurt us. “They are mothers and father too,” said the Rosie (the previous line was said in a very unmanly wuss voice)’
It bugs the hell out of me the lib media will not, absolutely will not, report enemy atrocities, but when a few naked terrorists are put in a pile we are somehow worse than them (the media also seldom reports that the soldiers who did this at Abu Ghraib were punished for their actions, and rightfully so. We at least realize when we are wrong and rectify it, unlike the terrorists). Our men have been beheaded and Iraqi women and children raped by Al Qaeda, but when was the last time you saw media outrage at that? Oh that’s right John Murtha, only our soldiers “rape women and children in the dark of night. Or how about this:
The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited
to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each
instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11-years-old. As LT David
Wallach interpreted the man's words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He
stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, "What did he say?" Wallach
said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then
their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked.
Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.
That’s right, the enemy bakes kids and serves them to their parents and this isn't on the front page of the New York Slimes or any of the major letter (ABC, NBC, CBS) or cable networks? Who are the savages, the unjust ones, and the animals cowering by hiding in caves? It’s not us. On 9-11 our brave servicemen didn't run out of the WTC, they ran into it. We are a brave nation and challenge evil. Liberals seldom realize this. If they really want to wage a battle against intolerance, radical Islam is the place to start. Their hatred of Bush and America blinds them to the point where they, the so-called ‘purveyors of morality’ won’t even condemn baking children. If it weren’t for talk radio, this story along with countless others would have never been seen.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Defending Tax Cuts & Reagan
My good buddy Capt Sack responded to my last post, A Roaring Economy. It was a good post; I’m not going to lie. I commend Capt Sack on asking honest questions to promote serious debate. There is way to little of it going on. Most “debate” now consists of an obligatory cliché one liner followed by a character assassination. Here is what the Capt replied with:
First, as far as tax loopholes go, the rich certainly have more. There is no disagreement with that point. However, I would argue that the rich deserve those loopholes and the cuts they get. They are the ones helping in creating jobs and still contributing most to the system. One person’s achievement is not necessarily another’s loss; we do not operate under a zero-sum game. Onerous taxes have a direct correlation and deterrent affect on income and wealth of jobs. Taxation doesn’t create wealth and prosperity, but more money in the peoples pockets sure do.
“Paying the most doesn't necessarily mean paying your fair share.” And who decides that? What is a fair amount for a rich person to pay? It depends on your ideology I suppose. I believe the American people, in general, are overtaxed, not under taxed. Also, why does someone who works for their money, illustrates their excellence, and helps the economy owe the slackers, the ones who fall behind? The point I was trying to make is that the economy is great right now, and tax cuts and rate reductions and Bush do not get any credit for it.
Lastly, a point was made regarding the 80’s and death of the blue-collar worker. I must reiterate the 96 straight uninterrupted months of economic growth. 20 million long-term jobs were created, ranging from blue collar to white collar and service workers. Because of these newly created jobs the number of people living in poverty decreased by almost 4 million from 83-89. But most important, lets not forget about the Reagan Democrats, who were mostly white, socially conservative blue-collar workers from the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his hawkish foreign policy. In 80 and 84, this group was very important in establishing his landslide victories.
Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, analyzed white, largely unionized autoworkers in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. (last paragraph taken from wikipedia)
The rich pay more money, but a lower percentage of their overall gross than the
middle-class or working-class does. $10,000 in taxes to a family of five making
$80,000 on Long Island means far more than $2,000,000 in taxes to someone making
$30,000,000 a year as a Wall Street hotshot. I know it's an extreme example, but
the rich do have far many more tax loopholes than the average joe does. Paying
the most doesn't necessarily mean paying your fair share.The truth is, the
solution is a flat tax. Without the complications of the tax code, everyone pays
their fair share. It would be a fairly low rate to be fair (for federal, well
under 20%, if not even under 10%, depending on the numbers). Then, there's no
bull. You want kids, a house, a fourth house for your yacht? No tax breaks,
period. It's all a fairer world, so no one can really complain about their tax
thresholds and tax bills. Ohh, and Reagan killed unions. He hurt blue-collar
America more than any other President.
First, as far as tax loopholes go, the rich certainly have more. There is no disagreement with that point. However, I would argue that the rich deserve those loopholes and the cuts they get. They are the ones helping in creating jobs and still contributing most to the system. One person’s achievement is not necessarily another’s loss; we do not operate under a zero-sum game. Onerous taxes have a direct correlation and deterrent affect on income and wealth of jobs. Taxation doesn’t create wealth and prosperity, but more money in the peoples pockets sure do.
“Paying the most doesn't necessarily mean paying your fair share.” And who decides that? What is a fair amount for a rich person to pay? It depends on your ideology I suppose. I believe the American people, in general, are overtaxed, not under taxed. Also, why does someone who works for their money, illustrates their excellence, and helps the economy owe the slackers, the ones who fall behind? The point I was trying to make is that the economy is great right now, and tax cuts and rate reductions and Bush do not get any credit for it.
Lastly, a point was made regarding the 80’s and death of the blue-collar worker. I must reiterate the 96 straight uninterrupted months of economic growth. 20 million long-term jobs were created, ranging from blue collar to white collar and service workers. Because of these newly created jobs the number of people living in poverty decreased by almost 4 million from 83-89. But most important, lets not forget about the Reagan Democrats, who were mostly white, socially conservative blue-collar workers from the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his hawkish foreign policy. In 80 and 84, this group was very important in establishing his landslide victories.
Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, analyzed white, largely unionized autoworkers in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. (last paragraph taken from wikipedia)
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
A Roaring Economy
So the economy is booming. The media is quite silent on how well it’s functioning, but trust me, it’s booming. Lets look at some numbers; let’s call it the magic of tax cuts. More specifically, the Bush tax cuts, which are really just rate reductions. Prior to the tax cuts, still dangling onto the Clinton (lack there of) economic plan and 9/11 destruction, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was 7,181. Less than 5 years later it has crossed 14,000. It has more than doubled! Along with that, the D.J.I.A. has broken records 30 times this year alone! That’s amazing. It’s one of the best economies in the history of our great country. Cut the tax rate and the economy grows, every time it’s tried. Think Reagan and JFK and their economies.
What’s the tie to the Bush tax cuts? Well, a little deregulation and Americans having more money in their pocket due to the tax rate being reduced is always a good thing. The rate reduction is only 2% (from 39 to 37) and it’s working ridiculously well. Adam Smith, the invisible hand, look it up. It works. Wealth and prosperity breeds wealth and prosperity. The government can only get in the way and stifle that growth. The unemployment rate is at less than 4%. This is even with the influx of illegal immigrants taking jobs “Americans won’t do.”
Oh, and for all you socialist thugs trying to take more money out of Americans pockets so to stifle economic growth, individual freedom, and play Robin Hood so to have more power of people, lets take a look at income taxes and who pays them. If you’re a Democrat, this is probably the first time you’re seeing these numbers. Take a close look, it is quite astonishing. The top 1% of wage earners pays around 34% of all income taxes in the US! That’s right, the top 1% pays more than a quarter of all income taxes. Still think they don’t pay enough? Here are more numbers. The top 5% pays around 55% and the top 10% pays around 66% of all income taxes. While the total top 50% of all income earners pays 97% of all income taxes, the bottom 50% pays about 3%! The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!
The rich earned their money, get punished by paying the most into the system due to “progressive taxation”, and get nothing out of it. Hell, they are still vilified by the left for not giving enough! Trickle down works; end of story. Reagan had 96 months of uninterrupted economic growth without inflation in the 80’s! Take that Democrats! By the way, do you realize there is a political party that hates tax cuts? Hates the idea of victory in Iraq because it interferes with their political agenda? A party that wants to destroy the best healthcare system in the world because they are just oh so compassionate? Liberalism is about control and fewer choices for YOU! Conservatism is about individual freedoms and freedom to choose to do what you want with your money so to promote individualism and entrepreneurship. With conservatism, you control your destiny!
What’s the tie to the Bush tax cuts? Well, a little deregulation and Americans having more money in their pocket due to the tax rate being reduced is always a good thing. The rate reduction is only 2% (from 39 to 37) and it’s working ridiculously well. Adam Smith, the invisible hand, look it up. It works. Wealth and prosperity breeds wealth and prosperity. The government can only get in the way and stifle that growth. The unemployment rate is at less than 4%. This is even with the influx of illegal immigrants taking jobs “Americans won’t do.”
Oh, and for all you socialist thugs trying to take more money out of Americans pockets so to stifle economic growth, individual freedom, and play Robin Hood so to have more power of people, lets take a look at income taxes and who pays them. If you’re a Democrat, this is probably the first time you’re seeing these numbers. Take a close look, it is quite astonishing. The top 1% of wage earners pays around 34% of all income taxes in the US! That’s right, the top 1% pays more than a quarter of all income taxes. Still think they don’t pay enough? Here are more numbers. The top 5% pays around 55% and the top 10% pays around 66% of all income taxes. While the total top 50% of all income earners pays 97% of all income taxes, the bottom 50% pays about 3%! The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!
The rich earned their money, get punished by paying the most into the system due to “progressive taxation”, and get nothing out of it. Hell, they are still vilified by the left for not giving enough! Trickle down works; end of story. Reagan had 96 months of uninterrupted economic growth without inflation in the 80’s! Take that Democrats! By the way, do you realize there is a political party that hates tax cuts? Hates the idea of victory in Iraq because it interferes with their political agenda? A party that wants to destroy the best healthcare system in the world because they are just oh so compassionate? Liberalism is about control and fewer choices for YOU! Conservatism is about individual freedoms and freedom to choose to do what you want with your money so to promote individualism and entrepreneurship. With conservatism, you control your destiny!
Saturday, July 14, 2007
The UN-Fairness Doctrine
The Democrat Party is not, as they claim to be, the party of free speech or the party of choice (unless its abortion of course). Senate Democrats on Friday blocked an amendment that would have prevented the return of the Fairness Doctrine, a federal rule requiring broadcasters to air opposing views on issues. But who decides what the opposing view is and how long each view should be allowed? Why the government of course. Leave it to liberals to puff up the government’s power over the choices of what you want to listen to on the radio. The last thing that results from the Fairness Doctrine is fairness.
The fairness doctrine is simply to silence conservative talk radio. Anyone with half a brain can realize that conservatism drives the AM dial coast to coast. We don’t dispute this. That is why the Democrat Party and the un-American left are targeting it! If they really wanted to “challenge the public airwaves,” they would have to challenge ABC, NBC, and CBS as well. Of course they won’t though because those networks are their mouthpieces, and they wouldn’t have to comply with the fairness doctrine. These Dems obviously turn a blind eye to the fact that PBS, Airhead America, and NPR (all left leaning) are all funded by the taxpayer. So if you’re a conservative, you’re paying for people to spread lib propaganda! That doesn’t sound fair to me.
Ed Schultz, the only lib to kinda, sorta, have success in talk radio says Republicans are overacting in trying to stop the Fairness Doctrine. Overreacting? Yes, the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for trying to defend free speech. You don’t see them trying to shut down the liberal bias in the papers or on TV, right? Conservatives don’t bother because we believe the truth will come out in the end. Talk radio is a perfect example of how conservatism wins in the arena of ideas. It is the ultimate democratic (not the party) forum, where ideas and truths are exchanged with respect. Have you ever listening to lib talk radio. It is vicious, condescending, arrogant, angry, hateful and riddled with Bush/Rove/Cheney/Limbaugh/Hannity derangement syndrome. Not to mention the fact that the libs LOVE the government. How are they supposed to defend big government when fails time and time again?
Here is the nail in the coffin to prove the Dems want to silence conservatives in talk radio. The Armed Forces Radio Network, broadcasting to our soldiers at home and overseas, carries many different types of programming. In 2004 Tom Harkin (D) tried to introduce into the 2005 Defense Appropriations Bill an amendment to take Rush Limbaugh off the network. By the way, the Fairness Doctrine is also referred to as the Hush Rush law in many conservative circles. Rush himself said, “This, my friends, is censorship. This is the United States government intruding on the First Amendment.” Right he is. I guess Mr. Harkin forgot that Ed Schultz, NPR and Airhead America is also on the same network! Why did he want to take Rush alone off? To silence him of course. Rush is a thorn in the side of libs. He single handedly took away the Dems media monopoly.
Remember this: fairness to a lib has a different meaning than it does to a conservative. Libs are obsessed with this ultra-ideal, not even possible initiative of equality of results. We conservatives want equality of opportunity. Talk radio is a prime example of this, and conservatism wins. That is what frosts the libs.
The fairness doctrine is simply to silence conservative talk radio. Anyone with half a brain can realize that conservatism drives the AM dial coast to coast. We don’t dispute this. That is why the Democrat Party and the un-American left are targeting it! If they really wanted to “challenge the public airwaves,” they would have to challenge ABC, NBC, and CBS as well. Of course they won’t though because those networks are their mouthpieces, and they wouldn’t have to comply with the fairness doctrine. These Dems obviously turn a blind eye to the fact that PBS, Airhead America, and NPR (all left leaning) are all funded by the taxpayer. So if you’re a conservative, you’re paying for people to spread lib propaganda! That doesn’t sound fair to me.
Ed Schultz, the only lib to kinda, sorta, have success in talk radio says Republicans are overacting in trying to stop the Fairness Doctrine. Overreacting? Yes, the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for trying to defend free speech. You don’t see them trying to shut down the liberal bias in the papers or on TV, right? Conservatives don’t bother because we believe the truth will come out in the end. Talk radio is a perfect example of how conservatism wins in the arena of ideas. It is the ultimate democratic (not the party) forum, where ideas and truths are exchanged with respect. Have you ever listening to lib talk radio. It is vicious, condescending, arrogant, angry, hateful and riddled with Bush/Rove/Cheney/Limbaugh/Hannity derangement syndrome. Not to mention the fact that the libs LOVE the government. How are they supposed to defend big government when fails time and time again?
Here is the nail in the coffin to prove the Dems want to silence conservatives in talk radio. The Armed Forces Radio Network, broadcasting to our soldiers at home and overseas, carries many different types of programming. In 2004 Tom Harkin (D) tried to introduce into the 2005 Defense Appropriations Bill an amendment to take Rush Limbaugh off the network. By the way, the Fairness Doctrine is also referred to as the Hush Rush law in many conservative circles. Rush himself said, “This, my friends, is censorship. This is the United States government intruding on the First Amendment.” Right he is. I guess Mr. Harkin forgot that Ed Schultz, NPR and Airhead America is also on the same network! Why did he want to take Rush alone off? To silence him of course. Rush is a thorn in the side of libs. He single handedly took away the Dems media monopoly.
Remember this: fairness to a lib has a different meaning than it does to a conservative. Libs are obsessed with this ultra-ideal, not even possible initiative of equality of results. We conservatives want equality of opportunity. Talk radio is a prime example of this, and conservatism wins. That is what frosts the libs.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
MORE GLOBAL WARMING BS/HYPOCRICY
I hate to bring up global warming two posts in a row, but when things become ridiculous one must strike it down and call them on it. Here is (a small portion) of what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had to say at Live Earth over the weekend:...of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, DC, who are nothing more than corporate toadies for companies like Exxon and Southern Company, these villainous companies that consistently put their private financial interests ahead of American interests and ahead of the interests of all humanity. This is treason, and we need to start treating them now as traitors, and they have their -- their slick public relations firms and their phony think tanks in Washington, DC, and their crooked scientists who are lying to the American people day after day after day, and we have a press that has completely let done American democracy.
Lets put aside for a second that this is complete and utter socialism (although it really is tough to distinguish socialism from liberalism, they are one in the same) and figure out what is so treasonous about questioning the 'great religion of global warming.' Well, absolutely nothing. It's called freedom of speech. But wait, I thought dissent was the ultimate form of patriotism. Isn't that what Hillary and Queen Bee Pelosi and Harry 'American Gothic" Reed said and continue to say when they 'question the merits of the Iraq war?' So if we apply RFK's standard of dissenting being treasonous, well then wouldn't most of the Democrat Party be either executed or put in jail being that treason's punishment is just that? The difference is that the Democrats actions are treasonous. Saying the war is lost when it is not, declaring the surge isn't working when we are in the middle of it, tearing down a general they unanimously affirmed in the middle of his operations, and stating our soldiers and marines are murderers and barbarians. It's pathetic.
The very fact that the global warming nuts can't take the criticism, can't follow their own rules, and can't answer simple questions on its flaws and hypocrisy should be enough to make it suspect as anything but the truth. Mark Simone filled in for Hannity today and brought up a great point. What did Live Earth really do? Honestly. It 'raised awareness of the great crisis of global warming (girly voice).' Like nobody knew about it before hand. Hannity's Freedom Concert, on the other hand, had a tangible end millions of dollars raised (and still being raised) for the families of fallen soldiers overseas, and it had no press coverage whatsoever! Also, why didn't Al Gore call all of the musicians on arriving in private jets, arriving in limos, and having their equipment arrive in big trailers? Oh, thats right, they had good intentions and said they care. This is utter hypocrisy and symbolism over substance.
RFK also said that "we have a press that has completely let done American democracy." Is he kidding me? The media is the lapdog of the DNC and cook fringe of the Democrat Party. Al Gore went on a full press tour before the shows began, was embraced with open arms by all of the major networks, and the concert was carried on a ridiculous amount of stations. NBC, Bravo, Sundance, MSNBC, CNBC, Telemundo, XM, & Sirius Satellite Radio all carried the event, totaling at 75 hours of coverage! Libs will be libs I suspose.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
ITS THE SUMMER TIME, SO IT'S HOT!!!
Live Earth was this weekend and let's start off with the obvious: if the earth has a such a fever, wouldn't it be better to just not have any concert at all? Wouldn't the earth be better off with one less concert rather a concert done 'as green as possible?' Well, of course; but the environmental wack jobs will never say that because of the 'message behind the concert (sensative wussy voice).' I watched some of it on TV and at one point and I saw kids talking about global warming. You wanna talk about indoctrinating the youth, this was a great example.
NEWS FLASH ENVIRONMENTAL WACKS: WE ARE NOT THAT POWERFUL. WE HAVE NEXT TO NO CONTROL OVER THE EARTH'S CLIMATE. LOOK AT A SATELLITE IMAGE OF THE EARTH AND YOU WILL SEE THAT WE ARE INSIGNIFICANT SPECS ON A HUGE PLANET. ANTS DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE CLIMATE 50 FEET ABOVE THEM AND AND NEITHER DO WE. YOU COULD FIT THE ENTIRE WORLDS (HUMAN) POPULATION IN A QUARTER MILE BY QUARTER MILE BY QUARTER MILE CUBE.
Seriously, we currently do not understand how complex weather is. Ask a climatologist what the cloud cover will look tomorrow and he will laugh in your face, but somehow we can know the earth is going to be a flaming ball of fire in 50 years and that Greenland is going to be gone or that NYC is going to be under water. Give me a break.
The Johannesburg Live Earth concert had a low turnout (and of course it is blamed on global warming). The temperatures there were colder than normal. Wait, if it is global warming than why would it get colder? Well, the 'theory' keeps getting 'modified', now to the point where everything is blamed on global warming. The genocide in Darfur has been blamed for it! Honestly, its on those articles you have to read to believe. Global warming deniers have also been compared to Holocaust deniers. Like there is any comparison. But anyway, back to Johannesburg and the fact that it was cold there. The reason why is because it is the winter time. South Africa is in the southern hemisphere. But the libs in the media with their condescending arrogant attitude assume us dummies won't pick up on it. Average July lows for Johannesburg are in the high 30's by the way.
At the same time we are hitting record highs here in America. This, in some circles, is called WEATHER! Weather tends to fluctuate from region to region. Records get shattered all the time. Weather is unpredictable and complicated and we can't even begin to predict what it will be like 100 years from now. Keep in mind it is warming on other planets as well, such as Mars. Also, the oldest DNA ever found on earth (in Greenland, mind you) shows insects, plants, and trees on Greenland, meaning it was warmer! Warming and cooling is natural, remember that the next time environmental guru, technology czar, and creator of the internet Al Gore tries to lecture you about what car you have to drive or what food you have to eat.
NEWS FLASH ENVIRONMENTAL WACKS: WE ARE NOT THAT POWERFUL. WE HAVE NEXT TO NO CONTROL OVER THE EARTH'S CLIMATE. LOOK AT A SATELLITE IMAGE OF THE EARTH AND YOU WILL SEE THAT WE ARE INSIGNIFICANT SPECS ON A HUGE PLANET. ANTS DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE CLIMATE 50 FEET ABOVE THEM AND AND NEITHER DO WE. YOU COULD FIT THE ENTIRE WORLDS (HUMAN) POPULATION IN A QUARTER MILE BY QUARTER MILE BY QUARTER MILE CUBE.
Seriously, we currently do not understand how complex weather is. Ask a climatologist what the cloud cover will look tomorrow and he will laugh in your face, but somehow we can know the earth is going to be a flaming ball of fire in 50 years and that Greenland is going to be gone or that NYC is going to be under water. Give me a break.
The Johannesburg Live Earth concert had a low turnout (and of course it is blamed on global warming). The temperatures there were colder than normal. Wait, if it is global warming than why would it get colder? Well, the 'theory' keeps getting 'modified', now to the point where everything is blamed on global warming. The genocide in Darfur has been blamed for it! Honestly, its on those articles you have to read to believe. Global warming deniers have also been compared to Holocaust deniers. Like there is any comparison. But anyway, back to Johannesburg and the fact that it was cold there. The reason why is because it is the winter time. South Africa is in the southern hemisphere. But the libs in the media with their condescending arrogant attitude assume us dummies won't pick up on it. Average July lows for Johannesburg are in the high 30's by the way.
At the same time we are hitting record highs here in America. This, in some circles, is called WEATHER! Weather tends to fluctuate from region to region. Records get shattered all the time. Weather is unpredictable and complicated and we can't even begin to predict what it will be like 100 years from now. Keep in mind it is warming on other planets as well, such as Mars. Also, the oldest DNA ever found on earth (in Greenland, mind you) shows insects, plants, and trees on Greenland, meaning it was warmer! Warming and cooling is natural, remember that the next time environmental guru, technology czar, and creator of the internet Al Gore tries to lecture you about what car you have to drive or what food you have to eat.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
WHATS SO GREAT ABOUT AMERICA
This is the first post; where I begin to cut myself open for all to see what I think about varying social and political issues. This gets me thinking about America, and being Independence Day just passed, there is no better time than now to say what is so great about this county:
- I can say what I want, when I want to.
- I can travel from coast to coast, border to (lack of) border and not have to worry about finding a gas station, food, or rest stops.
- My life is the envy of the world.
- A good meal is never more than a minute away.
- The traditions and institutions that helped the country prosper and grow.
- Being able to defend those traditions and institutions that are under attack.
- Talk radio.
- Living in a country that cleans the world, clothes the world, feeds, and frees the world. And even after getting little credit for doing so, continuing to fight on.
- The choices we have from food to drinks, entertainment and stores. It is never-ending.
- The flag; it is optimistic and inspiring.
- Marveling at the inventions and progress of American ingenuity through a can do spirit, optimism, and rugged entrepreneurship, all of which available because of the freedoms available to us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
