Been watching clips on TV from an interview the Comrade gave to Barbara Walters. She asked him if he'd made any mistakes.
He said yes, he did. In trying to protect the American people, he spared us from knowing just how bad the economy was when he took office.
So it's still all George Bush's fault. The Comrade was only being a big cuddly daddy, lying to spare us from the reality we all live day-to-day? Is this making any sense to anyone? If you get laid off from your job and can't find another for two years, are you unaware of how bad things are? Oh, save us, Comrade!
In truth, I don't believe the Comrade had a clue how bad the economy was. In fact, he still doesn't have a clue how bad the economy is. If he knew anything about economics at all, he'd recognize that all his policies to date have only fueled failure and made recovery impossible.
And of course, since he must have a glimmer by now -- if he reads the polls that show about 70% of the nation believes the USA is "moving in the wrong direction" -- that the population is a bit weary of the "George W. made me do it" b.s. So now the Comrade is setting up congress to take the blame.
He told Barbara Walters that the nation could have made a lot more progress, had not "the other side" blocked so many of his policies. Note, he didn't signify progress toward what.
First of all, what policies? What, exactly, has the Comrade ever proposed? The only things that come to mind are socialized medicine and cap-and-trade. BECAUSE THE COMRADE HAD DEMOCRAT MAJORITIES IN BOTH HOUSES THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF HIS TERM, he did manage to extort and intimidate and bribe his way to getting socialized medicine legislated. Not cap-and-trade specifically, but a whole range of equally stupid and destructive measures the EPA has passed as simple edicts.
The result is the same -- the destruction of free enterprise and prosperity in the USA.
And second, as far congress opposing him? THIS congress, the 112th, was elected in 2010, after two years of watching Pazzo Pelosi, blissfully brainless, destroy the republic. The current Republican majority in the House resulted in large part as a backlash against the Comrade's communist-fascist policies. We the people want congress to obstruct all the totalitarian bullshit that's going on in Washington. That's why we elected them.
The Comrade just doesn't get it. NOBODY WANTS HIS MARXIST POLICIES.
And after three years, he still doesn't recognize this, making him either monumentally stupid or a rigid ideaolgue who doesn't give a damn what the population wants. He wants a totalitarian marxist state, and to him, that's all that matters. His sociopathic arrogance has blinded him to reality.
SOMETIMES IT'S GOOD TO BE AN OBSTRUCTIONIST. I THANK GOD FOR WHATEVER FASCIST-SOCIALIST POLICIES CONGRESS HAS BLOCKED.
And Merry Christmas! And don't forget, 2012 is an election year!
Save the Republic.
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
Dem "victory" on tax cuts? It's all spin
It's all spin, you know. Saying the democrats have won some kind of victory on extending the tax cuts is, overall, a loss for them.
Even if the cuts are extended only two month, the "tax the rich" provisions have been dropped, and the language demanding a decision on the Keystone Pipeline is included.
In addtion, the Comrade initially wanted a year-long extension. So how is settling for a two-month extension any kind of "win" for him?
This is so totally stupid. Like I recall a video clip or something from years ago, showing a cat skating across a newly-waxed floor and smashing into the wall. The caption read, "I meant to do that."
That's kind of the same spirit as the dems declaring a win in this debacle.
Supposedly they made the Republicans "look bad." Only the brainless might think so. I mean, what is the advantage to the citizen to get a rather insignificant tax cut for two months rather than having the tax cut for 12 months?
I'm afraid I don't get it. It's like.... stupid.
The Republicans decidedly won this round, minus the yeal-long extension, and many Republicans opposed any extension at all because that revenue only depletes the Social Security fund. So what, exactly, did they lose?
No, this is a big win for Republicans. A major win. But somehow there's so much spin on it, it's been totally twisted around.
All for now.
Save the Republic.
Even if the cuts are extended only two month, the "tax the rich" provisions have been dropped, and the language demanding a decision on the Keystone Pipeline is included.
In addtion, the Comrade initially wanted a year-long extension. So how is settling for a two-month extension any kind of "win" for him?
This is so totally stupid. Like I recall a video clip or something from years ago, showing a cat skating across a newly-waxed floor and smashing into the wall. The caption read, "I meant to do that."
That's kind of the same spirit as the dems declaring a win in this debacle.
Supposedly they made the Republicans "look bad." Only the brainless might think so. I mean, what is the advantage to the citizen to get a rather insignificant tax cut for two months rather than having the tax cut for 12 months?
I'm afraid I don't get it. It's like.... stupid.
The Republicans decidedly won this round, minus the yeal-long extension, and many Republicans opposed any extension at all because that revenue only depletes the Social Security fund. So what, exactly, did they lose?
No, this is a big win for Republicans. A major win. But somehow there's so much spin on it, it's been totally twisted around.
All for now.
Save the Republic.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Had my fill of negativity already
Mitt Romney has given several interviews lately on TV, and I found myself warming up to him a bit.
He seems to be the person that Fox and many Washington insiders, and Ann Coulter, support for the Republican nomination for president.
However, I do not like, and never have liked, negative campaigning.
It's like making war, you know? It's like you if can't offer a strong and persuasive argument, then the other option is just to attack and destroy the competition. It's like the TV show Survivor, which I don't like and never watch. I mean who wins? The slimy, sniveling pig you wish had been voted out. The weakest runt of the litter who's just mooched off everyone else's accomplishments.
I can't respect this. As a matter of fact, I expect such a negative campaign to be the democrats' strategy next year, since the Comrade and all his twisted little buddies have failed to produce anything positive over his years in office thus far. He has nothing to offer, so attack the other guy. He's very obviously got nothing else to run on.
It's pretty disgusting from the democrats -- though actually more or less in character. And it's really disappointing from Mitt Romney.
I won't vote for anyone who runs a negative campaign. In fact, I really liked Michelle Bachman until everything that came out her mouth was an attack against her opponents. No wonder she's fallen so far in the polls. And I've been taking another look at Rick Perry since he stopped attacking everyone else.
So now Romney seems to think this negativity thing is going to work for him.
Well, it doesn't work for me. That's all I can say about it.
Save the Republic.
He seems to be the person that Fox and many Washington insiders, and Ann Coulter, support for the Republican nomination for president.
However, I do not like, and never have liked, negative campaigning.
It's like making war, you know? It's like you if can't offer a strong and persuasive argument, then the other option is just to attack and destroy the competition. It's like the TV show Survivor, which I don't like and never watch. I mean who wins? The slimy, sniveling pig you wish had been voted out. The weakest runt of the litter who's just mooched off everyone else's accomplishments.
I can't respect this. As a matter of fact, I expect such a negative campaign to be the democrats' strategy next year, since the Comrade and all his twisted little buddies have failed to produce anything positive over his years in office thus far. He has nothing to offer, so attack the other guy. He's very obviously got nothing else to run on.
It's pretty disgusting from the democrats -- though actually more or less in character. And it's really disappointing from Mitt Romney.
I won't vote for anyone who runs a negative campaign. In fact, I really liked Michelle Bachman until everything that came out her mouth was an attack against her opponents. No wonder she's fallen so far in the polls. And I've been taking another look at Rick Perry since he stopped attacking everyone else.
So now Romney seems to think this negativity thing is going to work for him.
Well, it doesn't work for me. That's all I can say about it.
Save the Republic.
49ers should think about day games
In San Francisco over the weekend, Candlestick Park saw two power outages during a night football game.
Well, maybe they should move to day games. I mean, it's only friendly to the environment, isn't it? Like, how many redwoods will they have to cut down to continue playing at night? That is, in the absence of coal, oil, and natural gas?
Last year, about 30 coal-fueled electricity generation plants were shut down. Another 30 will be shut down this year. And this all due to new EPA rules that claim these plants are responsible for giving people asthma. Many of these plants have been in operation for decades. All of a sudden, they're giving people asthma?
We won't look too closely at the science behind that, or the lack of it.
Anyway, those coal-powered plants, a total of 60+ of them, provide 10% of the electrincal power available in the USA. And the Comrade and his henchmen don't like the idea of the Keystone Pipeline, which would bring Canadian oil to the USA to be refined.
Remember during his presidential campaign how the Comrade promised he'd make the cost of electricity "skyrocket?" Well, this is one promise he'll be keeping. Many people predict exactly that -- skyrocketing costs, and eventually rolling brown-outs as well.
And isn't Karma a wonderful thing? No power in A) "candlestick" park in, B) San Francisco. Pazzo Pelosi's home turf. I'm sure she's very proud of her work on this issue.
They asked for it. They got it. They like it?
Hope they have a really hot summer, too. And aw shucks, no water either. Got to spare those little fish that clog up the plumbing. But it is OK to walk around naked in San Francisco.
Save the Republic.
Well, maybe they should move to day games. I mean, it's only friendly to the environment, isn't it? Like, how many redwoods will they have to cut down to continue playing at night? That is, in the absence of coal, oil, and natural gas?
Last year, about 30 coal-fueled electricity generation plants were shut down. Another 30 will be shut down this year. And this all due to new EPA rules that claim these plants are responsible for giving people asthma. Many of these plants have been in operation for decades. All of a sudden, they're giving people asthma?
We won't look too closely at the science behind that, or the lack of it.
Anyway, those coal-powered plants, a total of 60+ of them, provide 10% of the electrincal power available in the USA. And the Comrade and his henchmen don't like the idea of the Keystone Pipeline, which would bring Canadian oil to the USA to be refined.
Remember during his presidential campaign how the Comrade promised he'd make the cost of electricity "skyrocket?" Well, this is one promise he'll be keeping. Many people predict exactly that -- skyrocketing costs, and eventually rolling brown-outs as well.
And isn't Karma a wonderful thing? No power in A) "candlestick" park in, B) San Francisco. Pazzo Pelosi's home turf. I'm sure she's very proud of her work on this issue.
They asked for it. They got it. They like it?
Hope they have a really hot summer, too. And aw shucks, no water either. Got to spare those little fish that clog up the plumbing. But it is OK to walk around naked in San Francisco.
Save the Republic.
Monday, December 19, 2011
Obamanomics feeds on class warfare
I watched part of "The Week" on ABC-tv yesterday, mainly because Paul Ryan was on. Interesting show. Host Christiane Amanpour had Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) and columnist Geoge Will on one side, and Barney Fudd (D-Mass.) and Robert (Third)Reich, an economist who had been in the Clinton cabinest, on the other. They were discussing their very different views on economics. Kinda like watching Milton Friedman and Karl Marx go at it.
Anyway, anyone who pays attention at all is already familiar with the arguments. It was the guests' summary comments at the end that were very enlightening.
OK, George Will, speaking on behalf of political freedom and private property rights, noted that these are two things upon which the USA was founded, and because of which it has thrived.
Then Robert (Third)Reich offered his concluding statement, which I found very interesting, if not downright terrifying. He said something like we shouldn't be arguing anymore over what kind of government we have. He said the more appropriate question is: "Who should government be for?"
Well, there's your class warfare. If, according to (Third)Reich's view, government should be an active advocate for... someone... then, naturally, you're going to have all kinds of groups vying for government's attention and investment. Sort of like baby birds in the nest, mouths open, waiting for the pre-digested worms. But these are baby birds, not human adults capable of fending for themselves.
And, since government doesn't really produce anything, it has to tax someone, seize the fruits of someone's labor, in order to have anything to give to anyone else. So, it's the old Robin Hood thing, "Give from the [fill in the name of any victim], to give to the [fill in the name of the most effective whiner, or campaign donor, as it turns out}."
The thing is, class warfare still doesn't work in the USA. Sure, people will grudgingly agree with "Tax the rich." Sure, steal my neighbor's hog, not mine. But apparently no one but the OWies are actively out there hating the rich. Rather, after a month or two of the OWies' clueless complaints, their redistribution of filth and criminal activity, the public got very, very tired of them. The rich are a whole lot more appealing on a personal level.
I mean, who would you rather be? Some brainless idiot, stripping down on a Manhattan street corner to attract attention to yourself and begging for a hand-out, or one of the Wall Street "Fat Cats," or actually "worker bees," trying to pick their way through the stench and filth on the streets to get to their offices? Rather dramatic contrast in your choices there.
And, good grief, Barney Fudd is not only stupid, but extremely vocal and rude about it. Hard to get a word in edgewise over his aggressaive, non-stop drivel. Apparently he subscribes to the theory that if you can shout down your detractors, you win. What an idiot. It's like when he was 12 or 13 years old, someone called him a prodigy and he decided then to rest on his laurels. He's never learned another thing -- not even after seeing how ruinous are the policies he enacted and continues to defend in the face of their absolutely disastrous results. He continues to blame the banks for making stupid mortgage investments, when it was Fudd that forced them to it. He's retiring after this term. So we do have something to be thankful for. Now hopefully others can get on with the business of cleaning up the wreckage he leaves behind.
Anyway, enough of this for now.
Save the Republic.
Anyway, anyone who pays attention at all is already familiar with the arguments. It was the guests' summary comments at the end that were very enlightening.
OK, George Will, speaking on behalf of political freedom and private property rights, noted that these are two things upon which the USA was founded, and because of which it has thrived.
Then Robert (Third)Reich offered his concluding statement, which I found very interesting, if not downright terrifying. He said something like we shouldn't be arguing anymore over what kind of government we have. He said the more appropriate question is: "Who should government be for?"
Well, there's your class warfare. If, according to (Third)Reich's view, government should be an active advocate for... someone... then, naturally, you're going to have all kinds of groups vying for government's attention and investment. Sort of like baby birds in the nest, mouths open, waiting for the pre-digested worms. But these are baby birds, not human adults capable of fending for themselves.
And, since government doesn't really produce anything, it has to tax someone, seize the fruits of someone's labor, in order to have anything to give to anyone else. So, it's the old Robin Hood thing, "Give from the [fill in the name of any victim], to give to the [fill in the name of the most effective whiner, or campaign donor, as it turns out}."
The thing is, class warfare still doesn't work in the USA. Sure, people will grudgingly agree with "Tax the rich." Sure, steal my neighbor's hog, not mine. But apparently no one but the OWies are actively out there hating the rich. Rather, after a month or two of the OWies' clueless complaints, their redistribution of filth and criminal activity, the public got very, very tired of them. The rich are a whole lot more appealing on a personal level.
I mean, who would you rather be? Some brainless idiot, stripping down on a Manhattan street corner to attract attention to yourself and begging for a hand-out, or one of the Wall Street "Fat Cats," or actually "worker bees," trying to pick their way through the stench and filth on the streets to get to their offices? Rather dramatic contrast in your choices there.
And, good grief, Barney Fudd is not only stupid, but extremely vocal and rude about it. Hard to get a word in edgewise over his aggressaive, non-stop drivel. Apparently he subscribes to the theory that if you can shout down your detractors, you win. What an idiot. It's like when he was 12 or 13 years old, someone called him a prodigy and he decided then to rest on his laurels. He's never learned another thing -- not even after seeing how ruinous are the policies he enacted and continues to defend in the face of their absolutely disastrous results. He continues to blame the banks for making stupid mortgage investments, when it was Fudd that forced them to it. He's retiring after this term. So we do have something to be thankful for. Now hopefully others can get on with the business of cleaning up the wreckage he leaves behind.
Anyway, enough of this for now.
Save the Republic.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Go ahead, Mr. Prez, wreck the nation; see if that will get you re-elected
Things are not looking up. The Comrade, our president, won't allow it.
Domestically, the House passed a comprehensive appropriations bill that includes exentensions for unemployment payments and payroll tax cuts. The tax cuts are minimal, wouldn't keep anyone in beer and cigarettes, but the Comrade thinks they make him look concerned and magnanimous, so they stay. These cuts have the added bonus of speeding up the bankruptcy of Social Security, but I'm not planning on being able to retire -- ever -- anyway.
The House also folded into the bill a request that the Comrade make a decision on the Keystone Pipeline proposal -- that is, building a pipeline from Canada to carry the oil sands to refineries in the USA.
The Comrade already said he wouldn't sign a bill that included the Keystone Pipeline. See, the Comrade would sacrifice 20,000 jobs and a big assist to the USA's energy independence so that he can collect a couple dozen votes from the more rabid tree-huggers.
Hey, Comrade, the radical environmentalists will never know. They're all living in caves and one-room soddies in the deep woods and refuse to use electricity -- likely no communications. Don't worry about it. They probably don't vote anyway. That would involve having a permanent address, and I do believe they just sorta swing from tree to tree on kudzu vines. That way they don't have to use gasoline, can keep an eye on those spotted owls, and make sure no one from the Dept. of Interior is clearing up the flammable deadwood and overgrowth from the forest floor.
Anyway, Brain-dead Harry Reid will not allow the Senate to review this bill, even though it passed the House with votes from both Republicans and democrats. And apparently the House dems even tried to enlist a few allies among democrat senators.
Ol' Brain-dead is just that though -- brain dead. They just wheel out his corpse, Hannibal-Lecter-style, occasionally, and prop him up in front of a microphone to mumble his unintelligible gibberish. I think he gave another speech about cowboy poetry or something the other day. Hard to tell. He was barely conscious.
Me, I'm wondering what the Senate is getting paid for. They've done nothing all year but sit on their dead asses.
I may personally mount a "Dump Durbn" campaign in Illinois. Do believe he'll be up for election next year.
On another subject, one of our Stealth Drones landed in Iran. Apparently no one really knows how that happened.
Some remote-control operator probably let Slappy Joe Biden sit at his desk for a minute, and boom! There goes the military technology. Just couldn't keep his hands off the joystick.
Anyway, apparently the Comrade, as commander-in-chief, had the option to blow up the drone remotely, but he decided not to. Better to let Iran have this technology so they can show it to their good friends around the world and further neutralize the US military.
And now the Comrade gets to make a humiliating spectacle of himself and the USA, crawling on his knees and begging for the return of the drone. I think the Comrade's afraid of the hairy little twit in the 1950's golf jacket, Abracadabrajab.
At any rate, does "bumbling idiot" ring any bells? The whole idea of the Comrade as commander-in-chief is like something from a horror movie. Or really more like Inspector Clouceau of "Pink Panther" fame. I mean, the Comrade never heard of "corpse-men" before he got into office.
So, I'm not happy about any of this. Do have my fingers crossed, though, that a couple blue-dog dems in the Senate will knock Brain-dead Harry over the head, tie him up in a burlap sack, and toss him off the 12th Street Bridge.
That would be a huge and very appreciated Christmas gift to the nation.
And then the heroic blue-dogs can go before the inevitable congressional investigation and explain, "I know nothng!" That seems to work in Washington these days.
Save the Republic.
Domestically, the House passed a comprehensive appropriations bill that includes exentensions for unemployment payments and payroll tax cuts. The tax cuts are minimal, wouldn't keep anyone in beer and cigarettes, but the Comrade thinks they make him look concerned and magnanimous, so they stay. These cuts have the added bonus of speeding up the bankruptcy of Social Security, but I'm not planning on being able to retire -- ever -- anyway.
The House also folded into the bill a request that the Comrade make a decision on the Keystone Pipeline proposal -- that is, building a pipeline from Canada to carry the oil sands to refineries in the USA.
The Comrade already said he wouldn't sign a bill that included the Keystone Pipeline. See, the Comrade would sacrifice 20,000 jobs and a big assist to the USA's energy independence so that he can collect a couple dozen votes from the more rabid tree-huggers.
Hey, Comrade, the radical environmentalists will never know. They're all living in caves and one-room soddies in the deep woods and refuse to use electricity -- likely no communications. Don't worry about it. They probably don't vote anyway. That would involve having a permanent address, and I do believe they just sorta swing from tree to tree on kudzu vines. That way they don't have to use gasoline, can keep an eye on those spotted owls, and make sure no one from the Dept. of Interior is clearing up the flammable deadwood and overgrowth from the forest floor.
Anyway, Brain-dead Harry Reid will not allow the Senate to review this bill, even though it passed the House with votes from both Republicans and democrats. And apparently the House dems even tried to enlist a few allies among democrat senators.
Ol' Brain-dead is just that though -- brain dead. They just wheel out his corpse, Hannibal-Lecter-style, occasionally, and prop him up in front of a microphone to mumble his unintelligible gibberish. I think he gave another speech about cowboy poetry or something the other day. Hard to tell. He was barely conscious.
Me, I'm wondering what the Senate is getting paid for. They've done nothing all year but sit on their dead asses.
I may personally mount a "Dump Durbn" campaign in Illinois. Do believe he'll be up for election next year.
On another subject, one of our Stealth Drones landed in Iran. Apparently no one really knows how that happened.
Some remote-control operator probably let Slappy Joe Biden sit at his desk for a minute, and boom! There goes the military technology. Just couldn't keep his hands off the joystick.
Anyway, apparently the Comrade, as commander-in-chief, had the option to blow up the drone remotely, but he decided not to. Better to let Iran have this technology so they can show it to their good friends around the world and further neutralize the US military.
And now the Comrade gets to make a humiliating spectacle of himself and the USA, crawling on his knees and begging for the return of the drone. I think the Comrade's afraid of the hairy little twit in the 1950's golf jacket, Abracadabrajab.
At any rate, does "bumbling idiot" ring any bells? The whole idea of the Comrade as commander-in-chief is like something from a horror movie. Or really more like Inspector Clouceau of "Pink Panther" fame. I mean, the Comrade never heard of "corpse-men" before he got into office.
So, I'm not happy about any of this. Do have my fingers crossed, though, that a couple blue-dog dems in the Senate will knock Brain-dead Harry over the head, tie him up in a burlap sack, and toss him off the 12th Street Bridge.
That would be a huge and very appreciated Christmas gift to the nation.
And then the heroic blue-dogs can go before the inevitable congressional investigation and explain, "I know nothng!" That seems to work in Washington these days.
Save the Republic.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Picking apart Republicans
Watched the debate Saturday night among Republican candidates and thought it came off fairly well. And I have to say, after Mitt Romney has been sort of immune, or at least untouched by attacks from fellow Rpublicans or anyone else for that matter, he seems to be wearing a target on his back now.
Apparently the dems started running negative ads about him. Seems they assumed he would be the presidential candidate and they wanted to get an early start on their smear campaign.
And now it seems like Romney can't a break at all -- but not due to the dems.
During the debate, Rick Perry again brought up Romney's recommendation that the whole nation adopt the Massachusett's model for socialized medicine. Perry says the line was in the earlier editions of Romney's book, but has been deleted.
Romney swears the comment was never in the book and offered a $10,000.00 bet that it was not. Perry declined.
So since the rest of the debate (and even this part, from my point of view) was pretty civil, many in the press have now jumped on Romney, claiming that "$10,000.00 to him is like $10.00 to anyone else. He's out of touch with the American middle class."
No, actually, I think Romney was only naming a very large amount to emphasize the point that he would put his money where his mouth is. A LOT of money.
But nothing else really for the press to crank on, so they jump on Romney for that.
Gingrich also came under some criticism. The question came up about character and lying to your wife and all... turns out, Newt was the only candidate on the stage with multiple wives and a history of infidelity, etc. But Newt handled it with considerable grace, I thought. He probably doesn't make everyone happy, but at least he's not running away from it.
Funny, too, some key differences between Newt and Romney -- Romney is a sort of hard-core gentleman. Newt still is a bit inclined toward the controversial. But I agree with him when he says thre never really was a "Palestinian state." I looked that up myself not too long ago, and Palestine never existed except as a kind of region, in the same way you might refer to "New England" or "the Pacific Northwest." 'Course, Newt is not supposed to point that out because he might hurt some peoples' feelings.
Oh, and the Comrade was on 60 Minutes last night. I didn't see it. I'm sick of liars.
Save the Republic.
Apparently the dems started running negative ads about him. Seems they assumed he would be the presidential candidate and they wanted to get an early start on their smear campaign.
And now it seems like Romney can't a break at all -- but not due to the dems.
During the debate, Rick Perry again brought up Romney's recommendation that the whole nation adopt the Massachusett's model for socialized medicine. Perry says the line was in the earlier editions of Romney's book, but has been deleted.
Romney swears the comment was never in the book and offered a $10,000.00 bet that it was not. Perry declined.
So since the rest of the debate (and even this part, from my point of view) was pretty civil, many in the press have now jumped on Romney, claiming that "$10,000.00 to him is like $10.00 to anyone else. He's out of touch with the American middle class."
No, actually, I think Romney was only naming a very large amount to emphasize the point that he would put his money where his mouth is. A LOT of money.
But nothing else really for the press to crank on, so they jump on Romney for that.
Gingrich also came under some criticism. The question came up about character and lying to your wife and all... turns out, Newt was the only candidate on the stage with multiple wives and a history of infidelity, etc. But Newt handled it with considerable grace, I thought. He probably doesn't make everyone happy, but at least he's not running away from it.
Funny, too, some key differences between Newt and Romney -- Romney is a sort of hard-core gentleman. Newt still is a bit inclined toward the controversial. But I agree with him when he says thre never really was a "Palestinian state." I looked that up myself not too long ago, and Palestine never existed except as a kind of region, in the same way you might refer to "New England" or "the Pacific Northwest." 'Course, Newt is not supposed to point that out because he might hurt some peoples' feelings.
Oh, and the Comrade was on 60 Minutes last night. I didn't see it. I'm sick of liars.
Save the Republic.
Friday, December 9, 2011
The Sgt. Schultz defense: "I know nothing!"
Anyone remember the TV show, Hogan's Heroes? It was about Ally prisoners in a German POW camp in WWII. Sgt. Schultz was a camp guard who often stumbled upon the espionage and sabotage done by the POWs. However, Schultz didn't want to be transfered to the Eastern Front, didn't want to rock the boat. So whenever he came upon some plan the POWs had cooked up, he just shut his eyes and walked away. His standard lines were: "I know nothing! I see nothing!"
That used to be funny. Such cowardice and corruption.
Now it's the hallmark of the US Dept. of Justice and especially its director, Eric Holder.
So Holder and his people apparently were informed about Fast & Furious, a program whereby agents of Mexican drug cartels were allowed to buy all kinds of high-powered weaponry in the USA and ship it to the criminal drug gangs in Mexico. Apparently about 1,500 guns -- maybe more, I've heard a range of numbers -- were allowed to "walk" across the border into the welcome arms of the drug lords.
The BATF and other agencies received complaints from gun dealers. The dealers reported that a host of shady characters were milling around their stores with wads of money. The BATF and apparently FBI as well told the gun dealers, "Go ahead. Make the sales." In one or two cases, the agents even videotaped the sales with a hidden camera in a gun shop.
The federal agents seemed to believe the guns would be tracked in Mexico and would lead them to the gang members and encampments. Maybe. Who knows?
The result was, the feds lost track of the guns. However, one weapon did show up next to the dead body an ICE agent. Apparently it was used by a drug runner to kill the ICE agent, Brian Terry. So at least the feds found one of the guns, huh?
So Rep. Darryl Issa (R-CA) is running a congressional investigation into this whole affair. Eric Holder, head of the Dept of Justice, and the ultimate boss of the FBI and the BATF, has testified twice in front of Issa's committee.
The first time, Holder took the Sgt. Schultz defense: "I know nothing." He whined that the DoJ is big operation and he can't, after all, be expected to know what his employees are doing.
My queston at the time: So what is this dumb ass getting paid for?
Well, then a bunch of emails and memos have turned up, documenting the fact that Eric Holder had been informed about the Fast & Furious program. Holder says he doesn't read the information his deputies and agencies send to him.
My question again: So what is this dumb ass getting paid for?
Furthermore, there's documentation that indicates that Eric Holder is lying through his teeth. He calls these lies "inaccuracies." Yeah. That they are. Deliberate inaccuraces? That would make them "lies" wouldn't it?
So what is this dumb ass getting paid for?
Meanwhile, since Fast & Furious first came to the public's attention -- largely via the murder of Officer Brian Terry -- it's been suggested that Holder et. al. advanced the whole program to deliberately get American-made weapons into Mexico. Why? So that a case could be made to clamp down harder on US gun manufacturers, dealers, and eventually gun owners.
And guess what? A few democrats in congress are pointing to Fast & Furious and claimng: "See? Now we have to clamp down harder on US gun manufacturers, dealers, and eventually restrict gun ownership rights."
Funny how that how all works out, isn't it? Create a freakish mess, blame the victims, and use it as a reason to tighten the government's reach and control.
Gee.... where do we see that scenario played out... over and over and over again?
And apparently following Eric Holder's brilliant strategy, John Corzine, former US Senator and former Governor of New Jersey, former head of Goldman Sachs fnancial firm, is also using the Sgt. Schultz defense in a unhappy situation of his own.
When Corzine left as Gov. of New Jersey, he became part of a firm called MF Global, an investment company that seems to have sunk lots of money into European ventures -- many of which are currently spiraling the drain.
So the feds apparently launched some sort of investigaton into his activities. And as it turns out, there's something like $1.2 BILLION of investments that Corzine and MF Global have simply lost track of.
Look, investors aren't all fat cats. There are, for example, "institutional investors" that buy all kinds of bonds and stocks and such to support various programs -- often county or municipal pension funds and things like that. There also are private investors, people who maybe saved $200,000 over their lifetimes and invested it to fund their retirement.
So these are the investors in MF Global. With the missing $1.2 BILLION.
On the show The Five, Kimberley Guilfoyle wondered exactly how you could misplace $1.2 BILLION dollars. She noted it's not like quarters falling out of a hole your pocket.
When asked about these missing funds, Corzine told congress: "I don't know what happened to it."
I know nothing! I see nothing!
Corzine admits he was responsible for MF Global's business operations, but he doesn't seem too interested in figuring out what happened to all that money -- or in making any kind of reparations for it. He just might end up in jail. We can only hope. He could share a cell with Bernie Madoff.
And these are the people who are running things?
Good God...
Save the Republic.
That used to be funny. Such cowardice and corruption.
Now it's the hallmark of the US Dept. of Justice and especially its director, Eric Holder.
So Holder and his people apparently were informed about Fast & Furious, a program whereby agents of Mexican drug cartels were allowed to buy all kinds of high-powered weaponry in the USA and ship it to the criminal drug gangs in Mexico. Apparently about 1,500 guns -- maybe more, I've heard a range of numbers -- were allowed to "walk" across the border into the welcome arms of the drug lords.
The BATF and other agencies received complaints from gun dealers. The dealers reported that a host of shady characters were milling around their stores with wads of money. The BATF and apparently FBI as well told the gun dealers, "Go ahead. Make the sales." In one or two cases, the agents even videotaped the sales with a hidden camera in a gun shop.
The federal agents seemed to believe the guns would be tracked in Mexico and would lead them to the gang members and encampments. Maybe. Who knows?
The result was, the feds lost track of the guns. However, one weapon did show up next to the dead body an ICE agent. Apparently it was used by a drug runner to kill the ICE agent, Brian Terry. So at least the feds found one of the guns, huh?
So Rep. Darryl Issa (R-CA) is running a congressional investigation into this whole affair. Eric Holder, head of the Dept of Justice, and the ultimate boss of the FBI and the BATF, has testified twice in front of Issa's committee.
The first time, Holder took the Sgt. Schultz defense: "I know nothing." He whined that the DoJ is big operation and he can't, after all, be expected to know what his employees are doing.
My queston at the time: So what is this dumb ass getting paid for?
Well, then a bunch of emails and memos have turned up, documenting the fact that Eric Holder had been informed about the Fast & Furious program. Holder says he doesn't read the information his deputies and agencies send to him.
My question again: So what is this dumb ass getting paid for?
Furthermore, there's documentation that indicates that Eric Holder is lying through his teeth. He calls these lies "inaccuracies." Yeah. That they are. Deliberate inaccuraces? That would make them "lies" wouldn't it?
So what is this dumb ass getting paid for?
Meanwhile, since Fast & Furious first came to the public's attention -- largely via the murder of Officer Brian Terry -- it's been suggested that Holder et. al. advanced the whole program to deliberately get American-made weapons into Mexico. Why? So that a case could be made to clamp down harder on US gun manufacturers, dealers, and eventually gun owners.
And guess what? A few democrats in congress are pointing to Fast & Furious and claimng: "See? Now we have to clamp down harder on US gun manufacturers, dealers, and eventually restrict gun ownership rights."
Funny how that how all works out, isn't it? Create a freakish mess, blame the victims, and use it as a reason to tighten the government's reach and control.
Gee.... where do we see that scenario played out... over and over and over again?
And apparently following Eric Holder's brilliant strategy, John Corzine, former US Senator and former Governor of New Jersey, former head of Goldman Sachs fnancial firm, is also using the Sgt. Schultz defense in a unhappy situation of his own.
When Corzine left as Gov. of New Jersey, he became part of a firm called MF Global, an investment company that seems to have sunk lots of money into European ventures -- many of which are currently spiraling the drain.
So the feds apparently launched some sort of investigaton into his activities. And as it turns out, there's something like $1.2 BILLION of investments that Corzine and MF Global have simply lost track of.
Look, investors aren't all fat cats. There are, for example, "institutional investors" that buy all kinds of bonds and stocks and such to support various programs -- often county or municipal pension funds and things like that. There also are private investors, people who maybe saved $200,000 over their lifetimes and invested it to fund their retirement.
So these are the investors in MF Global. With the missing $1.2 BILLION.
On the show The Five, Kimberley Guilfoyle wondered exactly how you could misplace $1.2 BILLION dollars. She noted it's not like quarters falling out of a hole your pocket.
When asked about these missing funds, Corzine told congress: "I don't know what happened to it."
I know nothing! I see nothing!
Corzine admits he was responsible for MF Global's business operations, but he doesn't seem too interested in figuring out what happened to all that money -- or in making any kind of reparations for it. He just might end up in jail. We can only hope. He could share a cell with Bernie Madoff.
And these are the people who are running things?
Good God...
Save the Republic.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
"Fairness" -- define that, too
Well I found something that the Comrade and I agree on. In the speech he delivered in Kansas yesterday, He was correct in saying that right now is what he called "a defining moment" for the nation. To both the Comrade as well as to me, though we're on different sides, this means that we right now have to pick: Do we want the USA to continue as a free country or do we want to crush it down into some kind of dictatorial socialist state?
We are making the decisions right now -- all of us, every citizen. If you don't vote and refuse to otherwise participate -- well, as Edmund Burke once said, "All that's needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." In other words, you might as well burn the flag.
Just to make this simple and squish it all into a handy metaphor, let's think about the Comrade's notion of "fairness."
"Fairness" to him is masses of little cookier-cutter people, all happy little cogs in a great big wheel driven by Washington, all with the same needs, the same ambitions, the same principles and beliefs. As Time magazine (or was it Newsweek?) claimed upon the Comrade's election "We're all socialists now."
On a discussion list a few years ago, I noted that communism destroys individuality. That claim was quickly countered by some dude with Ivy League credentials who corrected me by saying, "Have you ever read Marx? Marx was all about the individual."
My response: "All three volumes of Das Kaptal. But it doesn't work."
Why doesn't it work? Because when you have a single decision-maker for the whole nation, then the whole nation gets the same thing. We're all treated exactly the same. We have the same kinds of jobs, wear the same clothing, watch the same movies, read the same books, get the same health care, eat the same food, etc.
Washington is not going to say, "OK, how many pairs of white levis do you want? How many traditonal blue jeans? Embroidered denim? Anyone?" The government won't do that. For them, it's too damn inefficient. We will all have blue jeans, maybe, or whatever whim pops into the head of a particular decision-maker at that particular defining moment.
Like health care. You have cancer? Right now, the feds are determining First, Second, and Third lines of treatment. Doctors do the first. Doesn't work, they do the second. Still doesn't work, try the third. Still doesn't work... they'll give you some end-of-life counseling.
A Dr. Janda, who was campaigning for a congressional candidate in Michigan in 2010 gave a speech (it's on YouTube, look it up) about this treatment methodology. He had a patient with cancer and had tried the first two recommended treatments. They didn't work. The patient was compelled to go to Medicaid or some-such, which would not allow any but those recommended lines of treatment. Which had been tried and didn't work.
Yet Dr. Janda says that for him to try other therapies with the patient, he, the doctor, would have been fined $100,000.00.
This is the Comrade's notion of "fairness" in action. One size fits all, even if it means chopping a few inches off your legs or taking your head off. The prescription from Washington will fit. At least there will be no other options.
Then think in terms of rewards. Some crazy right-wing student went around to fellow students on campus, asking their views on "income fairness" and "redistribution of wealth." Apparently most of them thought it was only "fair" that rich people should be taxed a lot more to pay for what poorer people couldn't pay.
So then the right-winger asked, "Well, what about grades? You got an A in Biology, right? Why don't you take a B so that some failing student could at least get a C?"
Interestingly enough, the interviewed students didn't go for that idea. One of them stridently complained, "But I worked for that A!"
Yeah, and nobody works for money, do they? It just falls off the trees in autumn. Or maybe it just resides somehow in Daddy's magic check book.
In the Comrade's Kansas speech, he asked something to the effect, "Do you believe you're better off when you're left alone to fend for yourself, play by your own rules?"
Well. Yeah. Isn't that what freedom is? Live by your own lights?
What are the options? Tax the rich? Cripple industry? Bankrupt and hamstring the financial industry? Nationalize the auto industry? Fork over corporations to labor leaders? Keep supporting dirt-poor backwards nations by refusing to develop our own fuel resources? Give our science to Red China for development and production by slave labor?
Anybody want to live in that kind of world? Nothing is your own, not even your mind and future. How many people are going to work and work and work, as they do now, if they don't get to keep what they earn? That wasn't very successful in the slave South -- except for the slave owners -- and I really doubt it will work now. Especially not with a bunch of infantile types schooled in nothing but "the world owes me a living."
Yes. This is a defining moment. And the outcome is up to all of us as citizens and voters. At least right now we still have a choice.
And I suspect the Comrade is going to lose this one.
Save the Republic.
We are making the decisions right now -- all of us, every citizen. If you don't vote and refuse to otherwise participate -- well, as Edmund Burke once said, "All that's needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." In other words, you might as well burn the flag.
Just to make this simple and squish it all into a handy metaphor, let's think about the Comrade's notion of "fairness."
"Fairness" to him is masses of little cookier-cutter people, all happy little cogs in a great big wheel driven by Washington, all with the same needs, the same ambitions, the same principles and beliefs. As Time magazine (or was it Newsweek?) claimed upon the Comrade's election "We're all socialists now."
On a discussion list a few years ago, I noted that communism destroys individuality. That claim was quickly countered by some dude with Ivy League credentials who corrected me by saying, "Have you ever read Marx? Marx was all about the individual."
My response: "All three volumes of Das Kaptal. But it doesn't work."
Why doesn't it work? Because when you have a single decision-maker for the whole nation, then the whole nation gets the same thing. We're all treated exactly the same. We have the same kinds of jobs, wear the same clothing, watch the same movies, read the same books, get the same health care, eat the same food, etc.
Washington is not going to say, "OK, how many pairs of white levis do you want? How many traditonal blue jeans? Embroidered denim? Anyone?" The government won't do that. For them, it's too damn inefficient. We will all have blue jeans, maybe, or whatever whim pops into the head of a particular decision-maker at that particular defining moment.
Like health care. You have cancer? Right now, the feds are determining First, Second, and Third lines of treatment. Doctors do the first. Doesn't work, they do the second. Still doesn't work, try the third. Still doesn't work... they'll give you some end-of-life counseling.
A Dr. Janda, who was campaigning for a congressional candidate in Michigan in 2010 gave a speech (it's on YouTube, look it up) about this treatment methodology. He had a patient with cancer and had tried the first two recommended treatments. They didn't work. The patient was compelled to go to Medicaid or some-such, which would not allow any but those recommended lines of treatment. Which had been tried and didn't work.
Yet Dr. Janda says that for him to try other therapies with the patient, he, the doctor, would have been fined $100,000.00.
This is the Comrade's notion of "fairness" in action. One size fits all, even if it means chopping a few inches off your legs or taking your head off. The prescription from Washington will fit. At least there will be no other options.
Then think in terms of rewards. Some crazy right-wing student went around to fellow students on campus, asking their views on "income fairness" and "redistribution of wealth." Apparently most of them thought it was only "fair" that rich people should be taxed a lot more to pay for what poorer people couldn't pay.
So then the right-winger asked, "Well, what about grades? You got an A in Biology, right? Why don't you take a B so that some failing student could at least get a C?"
Interestingly enough, the interviewed students didn't go for that idea. One of them stridently complained, "But I worked for that A!"
Yeah, and nobody works for money, do they? It just falls off the trees in autumn. Or maybe it just resides somehow in Daddy's magic check book.
In the Comrade's Kansas speech, he asked something to the effect, "Do you believe you're better off when you're left alone to fend for yourself, play by your own rules?"
Well. Yeah. Isn't that what freedom is? Live by your own lights?
What are the options? Tax the rich? Cripple industry? Bankrupt and hamstring the financial industry? Nationalize the auto industry? Fork over corporations to labor leaders? Keep supporting dirt-poor backwards nations by refusing to develop our own fuel resources? Give our science to Red China for development and production by slave labor?
Anybody want to live in that kind of world? Nothing is your own, not even your mind and future. How many people are going to work and work and work, as they do now, if they don't get to keep what they earn? That wasn't very successful in the slave South -- except for the slave owners -- and I really doubt it will work now. Especially not with a bunch of infantile types schooled in nothing but "the world owes me a living."
Yes. This is a defining moment. And the outcome is up to all of us as citizens and voters. At least right now we still have a choice.
And I suspect the Comrade is going to lose this one.
Save the Republic.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Creating the "Imperial Presidency"
The Comrade gave a speech in Osawattomie, Kansas, yesterday, at the same place where Teddy Roosevelt apparently launched his third-party run (and loss) as a Progressive. The Comrade implied a comparison to TR, saying TR was called a "socialist, even a communist."
According to Wikipedia, here's the Progressiver Party (Bull Moose) platform:
But read these above provisions carefully. The useful ones are in practice already. Many of them also were promoted by Woodrow Wilson, (I would call him a totalitarian and he was openly a racist) when he was in office. Some have been tried and abandoned -- actually much of the crap Wilson promoted was so disastrous economically and every other way it had to be repealed or reversed by Calvin Coolidge. And note that TR didn't favor the Anti-Trust laws, he wanted "strong National regulation" and "permanent active [Federal] supervision" of major corporations.
And exactly how do you break up the corrupt relationship between business and government by allowing the government to regulate business? Looks to me more like you're delivering a honey pot into the hands of poltiicians. And that's pretty much how it's all turned out, isn't it?
Additionally, in 1906/07, I think it was, the US suffered a major financial crisis. TR went to J.P. Morgan and asked for a bail-out. Morgan agreed. But TR didn't think it proper that a private financier had more money than the federal government. TR didn't trust private enterprise at all. You could say he was a control freak who didn't trust anything that he couldn't drag around by a bridle. TR was afraid J.P. Morgan would try to dictate to the federal government. Morgan never did. TR later commented that, unlike most robber barons, "J.P. Morgan is a gentleman."
I suspect TR was projecting his own power lust on the Captains of Industry and was genuinely and happily surprised that Morgan never even considered delcaring himself king.
Also, while he was President, TR also sent the US 7th fleet -- the Navy -- on a trip around the world, especially across the Pacific. This was partly in efforts to more or less shake a fist at Japan. The US and other western nations had ever had problems with Japan for not allowing ships like whalers into its ports for things like fresh food and water. Japan nurtured its resentments and struck back on Dec. 7, 1941.
In short, Teddy Roosevelt is regarded by many, if not most, historians as the man who created the "Imperial Presidency" in America. Before TR, the Office of the President was much, much weaker. Most power resided in Congress. TR wanted to weaken congress, shifting much of its power to the populace. Not a good idea. The USA has never been a democracy -- always a republic.
This is because the public tends to sway with fads and fancy -- and with specious promises of "free" milk and honey, a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage -- and that's not a rational or a viable way to govern. It's like Ben Franklin said, "pure" democracy is "two wolves and sheep deciding what to have for dinner."
Personally, I always considered the two Roosevelts -- Teddy and Franklin D. -- as the two presidents most destructive to personal liberty in the USA. And they were both very popular personally, like the Comrade. Some people call this combination of attractiveness and abuse of power "demogoguery." I do. John F. Kennedy was another one. He drove the steel industry out of the USA.
And I think the Comrade would like to take this all one step further and create the "Totalitarian Presidency."
What do you think?
Save the Republic.
According to Wikipedia, here's the Progressiver Party (Bull Moose) platform:
- A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
- Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
- Limited injunctions in strikes
- A minimum wage law for women
- An eight hour workday
- A federal securities commission
- Farm relief
- Workers' compensation for work-related injuries
- An inheritance tax
- A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax
The political reforms proposed included:
- Women's suffrage
- Direct election of Senators [they had been elected by state legislatures]
- Primary elections for state and federal nominations
The platform also urged states to adopt measures for "direct democracy", including:
- The recall election (citizens may remove an elected official before the end of his term
- The referendum (citizens may decide on a law by popular vote)
- The initiative (citizens may propose a law by petition and enact it by popular vote)
- Judicial recall (when a court declares a law unconstitutional, the citizens may override that ruling by popular vote)
However, the main theme of the platform was an attack on the domination of politics by business interests, which allegedly controlled both established parties. The platform asserted that to destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day. To that end, the platform called for:
- Strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions
- Registration of lobbyists
- Recording and publication of Congressional committee proceedings
Besides these measures, the platform called for reductions in the tariff, limitations on naval armaments by international agreement and improvements to inland waterways.
The biggest controversy at the convention was over the platform section dealing with trusts and monopolies such as Standard Oil. The convention approved a strong "trust-busting" plank, but Roosevelt had it replaced with language that spoke only of "strong National regulation" and "permanent active [Federal] supervision" of major corporations.So let's think about good ol' TR and his times. The big trusts did exist -- by act of congress. You can't have a trust or a cartel or anything like that unless you have legislation to enforce it. However, the Sherman Anti-Trust was already in place in 1912, when TR made his little Bull Moose bid. And the Sherman Act would have been unecessary had the Senate not strongly enforced the trusts. Many senators at the time owned pieces of the trusts. The trusts supposedly "protected" US trade and production, most notably the Sugar Trust, which banned import of sugar, or put really stiff tariffs on imports to "protect" the sugar industry mostly in Louisiana and Texas. Every state had their local hobby horse industry and the state legislatures elected the US Senators.
But read these above provisions carefully. The useful ones are in practice already. Many of them also were promoted by Woodrow Wilson, (I would call him a totalitarian and he was openly a racist) when he was in office. Some have been tried and abandoned -- actually much of the crap Wilson promoted was so disastrous economically and every other way it had to be repealed or reversed by Calvin Coolidge. And note that TR didn't favor the Anti-Trust laws, he wanted "strong National regulation" and "permanent active [Federal] supervision" of major corporations.
And exactly how do you break up the corrupt relationship between business and government by allowing the government to regulate business? Looks to me more like you're delivering a honey pot into the hands of poltiicians. And that's pretty much how it's all turned out, isn't it?
Additionally, in 1906/07, I think it was, the US suffered a major financial crisis. TR went to J.P. Morgan and asked for a bail-out. Morgan agreed. But TR didn't think it proper that a private financier had more money than the federal government. TR didn't trust private enterprise at all. You could say he was a control freak who didn't trust anything that he couldn't drag around by a bridle. TR was afraid J.P. Morgan would try to dictate to the federal government. Morgan never did. TR later commented that, unlike most robber barons, "J.P. Morgan is a gentleman."
I suspect TR was projecting his own power lust on the Captains of Industry and was genuinely and happily surprised that Morgan never even considered delcaring himself king.
Also, while he was President, TR also sent the US 7th fleet -- the Navy -- on a trip around the world, especially across the Pacific. This was partly in efforts to more or less shake a fist at Japan. The US and other western nations had ever had problems with Japan for not allowing ships like whalers into its ports for things like fresh food and water. Japan nurtured its resentments and struck back on Dec. 7, 1941.
In short, Teddy Roosevelt is regarded by many, if not most, historians as the man who created the "Imperial Presidency" in America. Before TR, the Office of the President was much, much weaker. Most power resided in Congress. TR wanted to weaken congress, shifting much of its power to the populace. Not a good idea. The USA has never been a democracy -- always a republic.
This is because the public tends to sway with fads and fancy -- and with specious promises of "free" milk and honey, a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage -- and that's not a rational or a viable way to govern. It's like Ben Franklin said, "pure" democracy is "two wolves and sheep deciding what to have for dinner."
Personally, I always considered the two Roosevelts -- Teddy and Franklin D. -- as the two presidents most destructive to personal liberty in the USA. And they were both very popular personally, like the Comrade. Some people call this combination of attractiveness and abuse of power "demogoguery." I do. John F. Kennedy was another one. He drove the steel industry out of the USA.
And I think the Comrade would like to take this all one step further and create the "Totalitarian Presidency."
What do you think?
Save the Republic.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
The mask is off: Leftists openly promote communism for US
Well, hate to say I toldya so, but in my Nov. 2 blog, titled "White House Game Plan," I outlined pretty damn accurately the Comrade's and the left's program for the future of the USA.
And now in the Dec. 1 Wall Street Journal, Andy Stern -- former head of the SEIU, currently a professor at Columbia, and one of the Comrade's love-bugs -- has suggested that since Red China is so far ahead of the USA economically (in their dreams, anyway), we should probably adopt Red China's economic model. Central planning, centralized control, government-owned and operated.
Read it here if you don't believe me:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204630904577056490023451980.html?KEYWORDS=China%27s+Superior+Economic+MOdel
See? What did I say? They create a huge mess, force a deadlock in congress, sieze control of and paralyze key components of the US economy like the banks, and use the EPA and Dept of Energy to hamstring free enterprise here --and then suggest:
HEY, THINGS ARE SUCH A MUDDLE, AREN'T THEY? WOULDN'T YOU JUST PREFER TO BE A SLAVE TO THE STATE? DON'T YOU REALLY, DEEP IN YOUR HEART, LONG TO LIVE UNDER A TOTALITARIAN DCTATORSHIP? (WITH THE LIKES OF STERN RUNNING THINGS, OF COURSE.)
Stern has balls, I got to say that.
I mean, it's not like anything the left has suggested has worked so far. So Stern suggests we demand more of it? He really thinks we're stupid. The SEIU is mostly unskilled and unschooled labor, dude. They run ads on Craigslist for paid protesters (read "Astro-Turf") for $10.00 an hour. Not exactly representative of the rest of the labor force. In fact, only a very tiny percentage.
The fact that Stern is actually employed at Columbia University doesn't say much for the Ivy League, either. Or actually it says a whole lot about the Ivy League, doesn't it?
Hey, Mr. Shit-for-brains Stern, we already have about three-quarters of the communist model and what is the result so far?
Got to ask: Are you better off now than you were three years ago?
Somehow I can't see how this economic mess is the result of free market capitalism, rather, just the opposite. It's the result of nanny-statism, over-regulation, illiterate political idiots running the US Senate, and a total incompetent blockhead in the White House. And I'm being kind; actually, I think the Comrade is a very shrewd sociopath -- a really mean and power-hungry bastard -- like Stern and all the other totalitarians who have preceded them.
You know what? I'm proud of myself. I'm almost never wrong about politics, you know. And I called this one.
And why, oh why, is the media -- with a few exceptions -- along with conservative politicians, so slow to call out these marxists? I mean call them "marxists." These creeps even admit it.
And what an inopportune moment for Stern to come out of the closet -- when everybody hates the Comrade, the economy's in the dumper due to his policies, and Stern's loyalists -- the OWies -- are proving themselves to be ignorant and even criminal slobs and mental defectives. I mean, does Stern think he's got a shot here? Exactly what does he have to offer?
Perhaps he's been too long at Columbia.
Save the Republic.
And now in the Dec. 1 Wall Street Journal, Andy Stern -- former head of the SEIU, currently a professor at Columbia, and one of the Comrade's love-bugs -- has suggested that since Red China is so far ahead of the USA economically (in their dreams, anyway), we should probably adopt Red China's economic model. Central planning, centralized control, government-owned and operated.
Read it here if you don't believe me:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204630904577056490023451980.html?KEYWORDS=China%27s+Superior+Economic+MOdel
See? What did I say? They create a huge mess, force a deadlock in congress, sieze control of and paralyze key components of the US economy like the banks, and use the EPA and Dept of Energy to hamstring free enterprise here --and then suggest:
HEY, THINGS ARE SUCH A MUDDLE, AREN'T THEY? WOULDN'T YOU JUST PREFER TO BE A SLAVE TO THE STATE? DON'T YOU REALLY, DEEP IN YOUR HEART, LONG TO LIVE UNDER A TOTALITARIAN DCTATORSHIP? (WITH THE LIKES OF STERN RUNNING THINGS, OF COURSE.)
Stern has balls, I got to say that.
I mean, it's not like anything the left has suggested has worked so far. So Stern suggests we demand more of it? He really thinks we're stupid. The SEIU is mostly unskilled and unschooled labor, dude. They run ads on Craigslist for paid protesters (read "Astro-Turf") for $10.00 an hour. Not exactly representative of the rest of the labor force. In fact, only a very tiny percentage.
The fact that Stern is actually employed at Columbia University doesn't say much for the Ivy League, either. Or actually it says a whole lot about the Ivy League, doesn't it?
Hey, Mr. Shit-for-brains Stern, we already have about three-quarters of the communist model and what is the result so far?
Got to ask: Are you better off now than you were three years ago?
Somehow I can't see how this economic mess is the result of free market capitalism, rather, just the opposite. It's the result of nanny-statism, over-regulation, illiterate political idiots running the US Senate, and a total incompetent blockhead in the White House. And I'm being kind; actually, I think the Comrade is a very shrewd sociopath -- a really mean and power-hungry bastard -- like Stern and all the other totalitarians who have preceded them.
You know what? I'm proud of myself. I'm almost never wrong about politics, you know. And I called this one.
And why, oh why, is the media -- with a few exceptions -- along with conservative politicians, so slow to call out these marxists? I mean call them "marxists." These creeps even admit it.
And what an inopportune moment for Stern to come out of the closet -- when everybody hates the Comrade, the economy's in the dumper due to his policies, and Stern's loyalists -- the OWies -- are proving themselves to be ignorant and even criminal slobs and mental defectives. I mean, does Stern think he's got a shot here? Exactly what does he have to offer?
Perhaps he's been too long at Columbia.
Save the Republic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)