None. Because that's not the purpose of Obama's tax increases. The purpose is spite and revenge and politics. Because Obama doesn't understand America. He despises capitalism (it's unfair) and liberty (it's raaaaacist), in favor of serfdom, domination and forcing you to kiss his ass.
Go to 3:12 in this video and watch a man who is more Presidential than our current President will ever be. And then answer the question: Mr. President, how many jobs will government create by taxing private jet owners?
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Civility? Now The Left Wants *US* To Be Civil?
Are you hearing the same thing I'm hearing? The calls from the Left to be "civil?" And the hushed tones of agreement from milquetoast Republicans about how we need to "tone it down" when discussing politics. Uhm, yeah. Because when I think of civil, respectful discourse, the Left is the FIRST thing that comes to mind.
You mean, civil, like this of course:
Or, no, wait, maybe they mean "civil" like this:
Or this:
Or maybe, this:
Oh, no, wait, this must be what they mean by civil:
Or could they mean, civil, like this:
Or, maybe, their definition of "civil" means burning the President of the United States in effigy?
Because, to me, nothing says "civil discourse" like burning your President in effigy.
Oh, and just in case you're a little lost at what the Left means by civil, here's their poster boy for renewed civility:
And his friend, Mr. Civility, Mr. Patriotic Civility, that is:
I don't know about you, but I am looking FORWARD to this new kind of civility!!
You mean, civil, like this of course:
Or, no, wait, maybe they mean "civil" like this:
Or this:
Or maybe, this:
Oh, no, wait, this must be what they mean by civil:
Or could they mean, civil, like this:
Or, maybe, their definition of "civil" means burning the President of the United States in effigy?
Because, to me, nothing says "civil discourse" like burning your President in effigy.
Oh, and just in case you're a little lost at what the Left means by civil, here's their poster boy for renewed civility:
And his friend, Mr. Civility, Mr. Patriotic Civility, that is:
I don't know about you, but I am looking FORWARD to this new kind of civility!!
Because, nothing says "treat your fellow citizens with civility, grace and respect" like calling for making war on them.
PHOTOS COURTESY OF ZOMBIETIME*
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Wrong.
It's because he's black. And because he fits their prejudices of the noble and benighted negro, who could be saved, if only he would give himself over to their complete control. Because they know what's best for everybody, including you and me, but especially blacks. And because they're hypocrites and nasty bigots.
Friday, May 14, 2010
You're Kidding, Right?
Tell me you're kidding? I mean, really, Mr. Attorney General Holder? Really? You've been whoring yourself around, mouthing off and trash-talking like some two-bit race-hustler Al Sharpton wannabe and you haven't even bothered to gather the most basic facts? You haven't even read the law?
"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. . . not having read the law . . ."
Nope, I guess not. But seriously, why should I expect anything more? You're an Affirmative Action baby, just like your boss.
But, not. You're the man our President has chosen to lead the Justice Department. Really? You're the top law enforcement official in the Federal Government and you've been criticizing this law and impugning the motives of the people who passed and support this law and you can't be bothered to read a 10-page law?
Wow.
All snark aside, this little episode is very revealing about the character of Mr. Holder. First, he has told us he is a demagogue. He has no problem making uninformed snap judgments about important legal issues. He has no problem impugning the motives of his fellow citizens based on nothing more than his ignorant prejudices. That's important to know.
But more than that any of that, Mr. Holder has revealed a uniquely "entitled" mindset. He's told us that he has NO PROBLEM telling the entire country that he hasn't performed the most basic tasks required of his job. It's his JOB to inform himself about important legal issues. It's his JOB to enforce laws. It his JOB to be a role model for law enforcement officials around the country. It's his job to be a leader, to offer guidance, to exercise wisdom and discretion. And here he is, on Capitol Hill, telling the entire country that he hasn't done his job. That's entitlement.
"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. . . not having read the law . . ."
Nope, I guess not. But seriously, why should I expect anything more? You're an Affirmative Action baby, just like your boss.
But, not. You're the man our President has chosen to lead the Justice Department. Really? You're the top law enforcement official in the Federal Government and you've been criticizing this law and impugning the motives of the people who passed and support this law and you can't be bothered to read a 10-page law?
Wow.
All snark aside, this little episode is very revealing about the character of Mr. Holder. First, he has told us he is a demagogue. He has no problem making uninformed snap judgments about important legal issues. He has no problem impugning the motives of his fellow citizens based on nothing more than his ignorant prejudices. That's important to know.
But more than that any of that, Mr. Holder has revealed a uniquely "entitled" mindset. He's told us that he has NO PROBLEM telling the entire country that he hasn't performed the most basic tasks required of his job. It's his JOB to inform himself about important legal issues. It's his JOB to enforce laws. It his JOB to be a role model for law enforcement officials around the country. It's his job to be a leader, to offer guidance, to exercise wisdom and discretion. And here he is, on Capitol Hill, telling the entire country that he hasn't done his job. That's entitlement.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
*This* Is A Presidential State of the Union
Compare and contrast this optimistic, confident, teleprompter-free, substantive, philosophically sound and just plain true-blue American performance with what you saw tonight.
Delivered at very similar times in each respective President's first term, in similar economic conditions, Reagan ALREADY had remarkable improvement. Our current occupant has growing unemployment, looming inflation, metastasizing federal government regulations and a public that is growing weary of his empty rhetoric.
Gosh, I wish we had a real president again.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
LIAR
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/01/05/obamas-c-span-problem/
The President made promises. Explicit promises. And yet, he never intended to keep his promises. He made those promises because he knew it would make people more likely to vote for him. And that once he was elected, the public wouldn't be able to make him perform on his promises. He wins.
Now, let me be perfectly clear. All politicians do this. They all say things that are a "stretch" of the truth. But for the LEFT in America to go on and on for YEARS about how Bush got it wrong about WMD in Iraq and then to ignore this, well, that demonstrates the oily hypocrisy of the LEFT like nothing else. Notice, that in all the LEFT's years of calling Bush a liar, they never addressed the KEY distinction that separates a lie from an error: knowing misrepresentation of a fact with intent to deceive. Everybody thought Iraq had WMD. The CIA, the NSA, Algore, Bill Clinton....even the French and the UN thought he had WMD.
Oh, and one last thing. I don't necessarily care if there are cameras in deliberation sessions. I can see a strong argument why they shouldn't be there. We do not live in a direct democracy, nor do I want to. I don't want politicians preening for the cameras more than they already do. So, I can see it both ways.
But the only conclusion one can draw about Obama's actions in this regard are that he's a liar and a hypocrite.
UPDATE: Seems I'm not alone in my assessment about our President's strained relations with veracity:
The President made promises. Explicit promises. And yet, he never intended to keep his promises. He made those promises because he knew it would make people more likely to vote for him. And that once he was elected, the public wouldn't be able to make him perform on his promises. He wins.
Now, let me be perfectly clear. All politicians do this. They all say things that are a "stretch" of the truth. But for the LEFT in America to go on and on for YEARS about how Bush got it wrong about WMD in Iraq and then to ignore this, well, that demonstrates the oily hypocrisy of the LEFT like nothing else. Notice, that in all the LEFT's years of calling Bush a liar, they never addressed the KEY distinction that separates a lie from an error: knowing misrepresentation of a fact with intent to deceive. Everybody thought Iraq had WMD. The CIA, the NSA, Algore, Bill Clinton....even the French and the UN thought he had WMD.
Oh, and one last thing. I don't necessarily care if there are cameras in deliberation sessions. I can see a strong argument why they shouldn't be there. We do not live in a direct democracy, nor do I want to. I don't want politicians preening for the cameras more than they already do. So, I can see it both ways.
But the only conclusion one can draw about Obama's actions in this regard are that he's a liar and a hypocrite.
UPDATE: Seems I'm not alone in my assessment about our President's strained relations with veracity:
Thursday, December 24, 2009
It's Very Simple, Really
California used to be the envy of the every other state in the Union. A vibrant economy, a melting pot of cultures, the bread basket (and salad bowl) of the world, a driver of tech-innovation, and movies and art. But, that California is long gone. And it's my bet that it won't be coming back any time soon.
I really don't feel like putting the time or the effort in to a long, detailed post explaining why I'm right. I'll just relate to you what I saw when I lived there (and what I see now that I don't).
At one time, not too long ago, California's infrastructure was the best in the world: The California Aqueduct, I-5, the 10, the 405, Long Beach Harbor, San Diego Bay, Oakland Harbor, LAX, the 101...all of these massive state projects were the foundation that California used to propel its economic growth. The massive Aqueduct system turned California's Central Valley from a barren wasteland into the most productive agricultural area in the entire world. Interstate 5 (I-5) allowed all that food to get to Oakland, and LA to be transported around the world (via the Long Beach and Oakland harbors) or by train or truck.
Yet, in the 30 years I lived in California I watched year after year as I-5 literally fell apart from lack of repair. Not only was I-5 never significantly improved, it was barely maintained. What was once a true "superhighway" of smooth, continguous concrete running from San Ysidro to Yreka, became potholed, abused, cracked, and in such a state of disrepair as to be a threat to average motorists. In fact, right before I left in 1999 the freeway was in such bad shape that several bridges collapsed during a routine night rainfall, killing several people as a result.
At the same time, Sacramento was doing - quite literally - everything in its power to raise taxes on its citizens. Property tax revenues went up, sales taxes increased, California introduced the Lottery (ostensibly to pay for schools (so, query what happened to the money that the Lottery money replaced?)), instituted and (raised annually) a gas tax (to pay for aging roads)...and yet with all that money, infrastructure deteriorated from lack of maintenance. Schools crumbled, yet cost more to run.....while test scores dropped and graduation rates plummeted.
To add to that misery, the legislature started passing out money to every politically connected interest group it could: workers' compensation benefits skyrocketed (especially for government workers); liability laws were changed to make it easier to sue and easier for plaintiff's lawyers to take huge paydays. In fact, in one particular area of the law (building codes for handicap access), the legislature passed a law that allowed businesses to be sued for the tiniest infractions of very intricate state laws regarding buliding codes. In most cases, the codes were ambiguous enough that most businesses had trouble complying even when they hired experts. And, yet the potential liability (triple damages and costs and fees) along with the cost of litigation (attorney's fees, etc.) caused most businesses to settle for 5-figure sums. As a member of the California Bar, I distinctly remember the Bar becoming so overwhelmed with attorney complaints (about this issue) that the discipline section became overwhelmed.
And yet, no matter how much taxes were raised, two things happened: 1. Infrastructure crumbled because the state rarely spent any money on maintenance, and 2. the government always ran out money.
The one common thread that runs through California is that the bicameral legislature has been dominated by the Democrat party CONTINUOUSLY since 1970. The State Senate has been Dem-dominated without interruption since 1970, while the Assembly (the lower house) was only Republican-run for two years (1995 and 1996).
To make a long story short: You want to know who has ruined California? Look at the Legislature: DEMOCRATS, DEMOCRATS, DEMOCRATS.
I really don't feel like putting the time or the effort in to a long, detailed post explaining why I'm right. I'll just relate to you what I saw when I lived there (and what I see now that I don't).
At one time, not too long ago, California's infrastructure was the best in the world: The California Aqueduct, I-5, the 10, the 405, Long Beach Harbor, San Diego Bay, Oakland Harbor, LAX, the 101...all of these massive state projects were the foundation that California used to propel its economic growth. The massive Aqueduct system turned California's Central Valley from a barren wasteland into the most productive agricultural area in the entire world. Interstate 5 (I-5) allowed all that food to get to Oakland, and LA to be transported around the world (via the Long Beach and Oakland harbors) or by train or truck.
Yet, in the 30 years I lived in California I watched year after year as I-5 literally fell apart from lack of repair. Not only was I-5 never significantly improved, it was barely maintained. What was once a true "superhighway" of smooth, continguous concrete running from San Ysidro to Yreka, became potholed, abused, cracked, and in such a state of disrepair as to be a threat to average motorists. In fact, right before I left in 1999 the freeway was in such bad shape that several bridges collapsed during a routine night rainfall, killing several people as a result.
At the same time, Sacramento was doing - quite literally - everything in its power to raise taxes on its citizens. Property tax revenues went up, sales taxes increased, California introduced the Lottery (ostensibly to pay for schools (so, query what happened to the money that the Lottery money replaced?)), instituted and (raised annually) a gas tax (to pay for aging roads)...and yet with all that money, infrastructure deteriorated from lack of maintenance. Schools crumbled, yet cost more to run.....while test scores dropped and graduation rates plummeted.
To add to that misery, the legislature started passing out money to every politically connected interest group it could: workers' compensation benefits skyrocketed (especially for government workers); liability laws were changed to make it easier to sue and easier for plaintiff's lawyers to take huge paydays. In fact, in one particular area of the law (building codes for handicap access), the legislature passed a law that allowed businesses to be sued for the tiniest infractions of very intricate state laws regarding buliding codes. In most cases, the codes were ambiguous enough that most businesses had trouble complying even when they hired experts. And, yet the potential liability (triple damages and costs and fees) along with the cost of litigation (attorney's fees, etc.) caused most businesses to settle for 5-figure sums. As a member of the California Bar, I distinctly remember the Bar becoming so overwhelmed with attorney complaints (about this issue) that the discipline section became overwhelmed.
And yet, no matter how much taxes were raised, two things happened: 1. Infrastructure crumbled because the state rarely spent any money on maintenance, and 2. the government always ran out money.
The one common thread that runs through California is that the bicameral legislature has been dominated by the Democrat party CONTINUOUSLY since 1970. The State Senate has been Dem-dominated without interruption since 1970, while the Assembly (the lower house) was only Republican-run for two years (1995 and 1996).
To make a long story short: You want to know who has ruined California? Look at the Legislature: DEMOCRATS, DEMOCRATS, DEMOCRATS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)