The End of Enlightenment

Can you marry marxism with Christianity?

2012-02-11T14:41:00.000-06:00

No.

Every time time the Comrade claims to be a "Christian," I sort of snort. Before he believes in any kind of God or spirituality, everything he says and does, and apparently even thinks, is right out of the marxist handbook.

Marx did not believe in any kind of spirituality. According to Marx, we evolved from dirt through continuous and irresolvable fights over the ownership of material things.

Marxism is so grim, unimaginative, and pointless, it makes human life just sort of useless and pathetic all together. You get up and go to work for the sole purpose of making enough money to get up and go to work tomorrow. The only purpose any Marxist has is to be a slave to the state. The peons are supposed to hold that as a "virtue."

And maybe someday, you can run for President of the USA, and drive around in a big jet and be surrounded by the Secret Service.

Marx was all about materialism -- and not the Madonna kind of materialism, but the kind that says, to quote from Reap the Wild Wind, -- "Laying in the mud, man looked up and saw the stars. And thought they were something to eat."

That's Marx.

Has that got anything to do with Christianity?

Well, they're both faith-based and neither has been absolutely proved.

But Christianity exalts aspiration, joyousness, family, civility, and if you're Jesuit, even intellectuality. Christiantiy applauds achievement and personal development, and above all, a personal conscience and self-directed, responsible, ethical behavior. Judaism the same. (For me, the jury's still out on Islam.)

Marxism does not. Marxism insists we're exactly the same, interchangeable cogs in the big wheel of a univerisal and absolutely authoritarian government. You do what you are told by someone else, whoever's in power. To do, own, want more than anyone else marks you as socially undesirable, especially if you exercise your own capacity for rational thought and insist on making personal judgments. In marxist cultures this gets you killed.

Marxism and Christiantiy cannot occupy the same space -- hence the suppression of religion in the Soviet Union and most ofther marxist nations. And I think that's what the Comrade and the rest of the nation is beginning to figure out. He's trying very hard to suppress religion here. It competes against his own beliefs, and cannot be allowed to exist in his marxist utopia.

The Comrade, of course, is all for the superiority of the state. That's his "fundamental transformation" of America. Take away personal liberty, personal property, freedom and happiness in trade for socialized medicine.

Sound good to you? Think about it and exercise your own judgment about it -- while you still can.

Save the Republic.

Obama claiming authority over God

2012-02-09T16:47:00.000-06:00

Very interesting conflict over HHS claiming that the Catholic church has to provide its employees health insurance that pays for birth control pills and the like. Given that the Catholic church is totally against birth control, abortion, etc etc. on moral grounds.

Let's go back to the central idea behind the establishment of the United States of America. The main idea was that this nation is based on individual rights, most notably the capability of the individual to "live by your own lights."

It's because of this principle that we have democratic elections and the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment, which claims "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof."

So, apparently that's no longer true if your view of morality and your decisions based on those views conflict with the dictates of socialized medicine.

That is to say, the authority of the government now supercedes the authority of the church?

The government makes all of our moral and all other decisions now. And the church is just some place to socialize on Sundays?

The leftists say women have a "right" to birth control, abortions, etc. And we all have a "right" to health care.

I can't agree with a "right" that enslaves the providers of such services. How does that work? If you become a doctor, you're opting to be a slave to the state -- or to anyone who claims to need your services? Hosptials are what? They fall from the sky to house and administer to the sick?

Where, exactly, does this "right" come from?

It's not a right. It's a privilege, and a quite dear one -- in terms of being the product of a highly evolved science and technology. We aren't born with this. This doesn't occur in nature. This is manufactured by human beings, just like cars or shoes or Ferris wheels. How can you have a "right" to this?

And how can the stupid socialist in the White House compel the Catholic church to go along with his stupid program?

Is the Comrade now a moral authority over God? The Comrade knows better than the Pope what's right and wrong?

Please....

Look, I'm not even religious and this makes me just enraged. Just who the hell does this asshole think he is?

Save the Republic.

Santorum big in Midwest

2012-02-08T00:57:00.000-06:00

Well, Rick Santorum swept three Republican nominating elections today -- in Minnesota, Missouri, and Colorado. He also won in Iowa by about 50 votes or so.

Funny, my theory is that Romney is appealing as a "winner" in places that are heavily liberal, because he's about half liberal and so slick I doubt butter melts in his mouth. Over-consulted maybe? Even the Republicans who live in these liberal states regard Romney as a "winner" because they can't imagine anyone else attracting the independent vote. These Republicans regard independents as kind of waffling half-liberals. And many of the independents aren't. Many of them are gun-totin', God-lovin' reactionaries and Tea Party. They don't like any of the established parties and Romney is not likely going to appeal to them.

Then there's also the problem of Romney-the-wrecking-ball, being that he can't even make any suggestions to try to curb his maniacally destructive SuperPAC. The one that does the hatchet jobs on all the other candidates, funded by big wads of money from Wall Street pals and other very successful Mormons. I do believe a lot of folks -- myself included -- are just damn sick of the negativity and actually turned off by it.

Gingrich looks like he pretty much fell off the radar in these states today. In fact, he was in Ohio today. Probably smart, because none of the states today are bound to deliver their delegates to Santorum. They have additional procedures for assigning delegates. Gingrich came in third, except in Minnesota, I believe. But he still can recoup some points. There will still be some shifting around before the national convention.

I wonder now if Romney-the-wrecking-ball will go after Santorum. Probably.

And the thing is, I don't really dislike Romney personally. He strikes me for some reason as a very kind person and he's obviously very intelligent. But he's got this pack of rabid wolves that he sets on his opponents, and that is not a strong testimony to his character. It terribly unattractive. Kind of like two-faced and ruthless.

And that's enough for now.

Save the Republic.

The tragedy of socialized medicine

2012-02-07T01:59:00.000-06:00

I get a lot emails from people -- jokes, news, all the weird stuff that goes viral. A couple weeks ago I got a link to a YouTube video, part of a Mark Levin radio show from November, 2011. A brain surgeon called in and told Mark about a conference he'd been to with others in his specialty, apparently hosted by what is laughingly referred to as the US Dept of Health and Human Services (HHS -- Heavy Horse Shit?). You can look it up. It's still on YouTube and runs about four minutes.

See, the way it goes with health care under socialized medicine is that doctors really don't have a lot to say about the treatment they give patients. There are several agencies within HHS that will review standard, customary, whatever, therapies are available for whatever can go wrong with the human body. From this stack of possibilities, these committees will pick the therapies that seem most appropriate, according to statistical data, which is already being collected and crunched. They already do this in Europe. You have First Line responses and therapies, Second Line if the First line doesn't work, possibly even a Third line.

So if you find a lump in your neck and go to the doctor, all he has to do is look up on his computer (ideally this info will be on the Internet), exactly what tests to give you and how to treat you. If your doctor strays away from these guidelines, he can be fined $100,000.00 for his first offense. Second time, he goes to jail.

Your doctor may know you better than the bureaucrats in Washington and may have better and more effective ways of treating you, but that doesn't matter. The feds are paying for it -- SOCIALIZED MEDICINE -- so the feds call all the shots. Get it?

So anyway, this brain surgeon goes to this conference with HHS in Washington, and what's under discussion? The guidelines for neurosurgery under Obamacare -- socialized medicine.

So this surgeon just wanted to tell Mark Levin that, for one thing, the feds don't think of recipients of socialized medicine as "patients," or even as "humans," really. No, HHS refers to us as "units." And "units" 70 years old or more who come in with something like a stroke -- what does HHS prescribe for their treatment? "Comfort care."

That is to say, wrap them in a warm blanket and wait until they die.

Of course, that's only for the mooches who are on Medicare. Not for the brightest and the best who buy their own private health insurance.

Before you stand up and crow about that, go find out what a private insurance policy costs per year for people over the age of 70. Unless you're in a labor union, in which case your bosses have got the Comrade by the short hairs and have exerted enough pressure there to get the Comrade to force every other American taxpayer to fund their Cadillac benefits.

But for the other 94% of us who are not in the UAW or SEIU, we'll pretty much be stuck with Medicare. Medicare has pretty much crowded out other insurance for the elderly. People my age have paid for it for most of our working lives -- funding it for our grandparents and parents.

And now we're stuck with -- being wrapped in a warm blanket until we die.

Discussing this with a friend, she noted, "But we'll all be in that same boat." Yeah, well, it's nice to have friends. We can hold hands, wrapped in our warm blankets until we die.

And it's not like it's going to stop with the over-70 crowd.

How long before the invincible 30-somethings, with knees and hips ruined by jogging and no resistance to viruses due to a failure to eat anything but carbs (without a face), begin falling apart? This will occur about the time the last of the few remaining private insurance carriers are folding -- due to employers moving their workers to "the government program."

How will HHS ration for sports injuries? After all, much like the COPD and lung cancer that results from smoking tobacco, sports injuries are largely self-inflicted. In other words, you were asking for it, dude.

Meanwhile, hospitals will be folding, too. Already Medicaid and Medicare payments to these institutions do not cover their costs. The feds can order them to lower their prices, in which case they'll be forced to close.

When Medicaid came to Chicago in a big way, five large hospitals that had served the inner city shut down within about three years. They took so many indigent and welfare and Medicaid patients, and had so few privately-insured patients to carry the load, that the hospitals had no choice but to shut down.

And here's another consideration. I believe this year or next, we'll all be seeing a 2.5% increase in our withholding taxes -- this to pay for healthcare. Your employer will pay much, much more -- either to buy insurance for you from a private carrier, or in penalties for not insuring you at all. Here's a hint: the penalties are a lower amount than the price of insurance. That alone guarantees that only the Executive Suite will be covered by private insurance -- either by the employer or because they're the only ones who will be able to afford it.

So -- over-taxed, private insurance driven out of the market, hospitals closing. Oh, and lest I forget, one doctor announced that according to one or another recent poll, about 35% to 40% of doctors now working are planning to leave practice with the arrival of socialized medicine. They'll either retire, look for teaching jobs, or do something else all together. They aren't fully reimbursed for their services under socialized medicine (or Medicaid and Medicare), and the new socialized medicine law prohibits them from owning businesses outside their practices -- like blood test labs, x-ray services, etc.

So... here we are. Merrily on our way to ruin.

I think of that vicious bitch Pazzo Pelosi and drooling moron Dick(head) Durbin crowing about how the American public is just going to L-O-O-O-O-O-V-E socialized medicine, and I can't find words to express the insult and the rage. They are so stupid they don't understand how very stupid they are.

So thanks, you brainless idiots. Thanks a lot. And may you end up in wrapped in a warm blanket, choking on your own puke. Until you die. And I dearly hope that's before the next election so we can replace you with legislators who will repeal your blockheaded policies.

In other words, Save the Republic.

Romney, runaway train(wreck?)

2012-01-30T17:42:00.000-06:00

I'm liking Romney less and less -- all due to his negative advertising.

Has he got nothing positive to run on? Just try to break the legs of the other guys?

No honor? Just run your campaign the same way the democrats do -- by namecalling and lies, generating divisiveness and hatred? How is Romney any different in this than the Comrade?

I don't know if I could support Romney. I think this is a terrible way to run a campaign, And the media and pundits all say, "But the negative ads work,"

Well, if Romney hired a couple button guys and sent them out to just murder all other Republican contenders in their beds -- that would work too, wouldn't it?

But would you vote for the candidate who did that?

Just think about it, that's all.

Beginning to think the anti-Romney people are correct saying that the "establishment" is firmly on Romney's side because he won't rattle their cages. He'll keep everything "business as usual," with mounting debt, no real solutions to anything, politicians sitting on their butts doing not much of anything.

Perhaps they want four more years of socialism and collapse. They've got theirs, after all.

No honor. No real love or respect for the USA.

I'm definitely not in like with those who will stoop so low to conquer.

Save the Republic.

So Mitt has nothing but big bux for attack ads?

2012-01-19T00:46:00.000-06:00

Despite the fact that Mitt Romney's 59 points are so wimpish (see a few blogs back), I was quite willing to support him if he won the nomination... until...

Mark Levin played a couple of Romney's attack ads against Newt Gingrich tonight. They were attacks not on policy or issues, or even Newt's well-known "baggage." They were personal attacks, name-calling with not much meat behind them. And so vicious, they kind of made you wonder about the people who produced them, appeared in them, who promote and pay for them. And they make you wonder about Mitt Romney.

So Romney's got nothing else? Really? Just lots of money to buy lots of ad space to tear down his opponents? That's it? Nothing on the plus side?

No. If Romney wins, I'll probably stay home on Election Day. He's starting to turn my stomach. I'm not seeing a lot of difference anymore between Romney with a briefcase full of money, surrounded by henchmen and the Comrade with the Secret Service and NBC.

'Course the ads are not Mitt's fault.

I'm a little sick that b.s. too.

I don't care that Mitt hasn't made his tax returns public. I don't care if he's got money in the Cayman Islands and only pays 15% in taxes. As far as I'm concerned, good for him. It's not like I was going to launch a venture capital firm until Mitt galloped up and snatched that opportunity away from me. I don't care one way or the other if he's rich. Might a sign of his acumen, not a bad thing.

But I can't respect someone who won't argue the facts or policy, instead just throws a bunch of crap against the wall to see what sticks.

That's no way to "win," Mitt. That's no win at all. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I'll tell you something else, based on 30 years working in marketing, advertising, public relations, and publishing. If you don't have a halfways decent product, you're not going to sell it. No matter how much lipstick you put on that pig, it's still a pig. People might buy it once, mistaking it for... whatever else was promised... but never again. The customers feel like they've been conned and fleeced and they become highly disgruntled. It doesn't end well.

This is the situation where the Comrade finds himself. He seems to think he can buy himself re-elction. And it seems to be where Romney's headed.

It doesn't really work. You end up just pissing off a lot of people who will never trust you again. Hey, if he can do it to Gingrich, he can do it to me, too. And probably will.

And that's all for now. Plenty more to say about the blockhead in the White House -- and I can provide quite a lot of evidence support that description -- but frankly, I'm sick of thinking about it.

America seems to be doomed.

Save the Republic.

White House betrays citizens... as usual

2012-01-18T11:37:00.000-06:00

Well, the early word is that the Comrade's administration is going to say no to the Keystone Pipeline. There must be some interesting insect that lives in the area, whose life is more valuable than the lives of American citizens.

Just another reason to dump this reckless and destructive fool as soon as possible.

By the way, can't the Comrade be impeached for ignoring the Constitution? Clearly he violated the very plain procedure the Constitution describes regarding making appointments. I mean, that was in your face. No question about it. Throw the bum out.

You know he's just going to double down on dismantling the economy and our culture. He knows he's only got a few months before he's history. He wants to destroy as much as he can while he still can. It's kinda like we have Osama bn Laden in the White House in terms of his attitude toward the USA.

An OWie threw a stink bomb on the White House lawn yesterday and the Secret Service did a lock down. Yeah, there's an idea -- lock the sucker in. Keep him there. Censor his Internet and his phones.

Of course, then that gives Slappy Joe Biden free rein over running things, and in that case, perhaps we can expect an atomic blast before November? Perhaps the Comrade, Biden, and Hillary are even goading the Iranians to do it, so the Comrade won't be blamed. (Avoiding blame and responsibility being truly the #1 thing on his agenda.) Perhaps as the Comrade sees it, the only thing that would get him another term is if the US were under attack from outside and united behind him.

Somehow, if we were under attack, I wouldn't even dream of uniting behind the Comrade. He'd sell us out in a heartbeat. He already has.

We can't afford this jerk any more.

Save the Republic.

Wolf in wolf's clothing

2012-01-13T11:29:00.000-06:00

Maybe I'm speaking too soon, but just turned on the TV, and there's the Comrade, asking congress for "more authority" to cut the federal government.

Sure, he'll cut. He'll cut out everything but his little marxist buddies -- appointed in violation of the straightforward language in the US Constitution -- and give each of them their own little dictatorial feofdom. He's got less than a year left in office. Has to try to do as much more damage as possible in that short time.

Hey, I know, get a bunch of socialist economists from Ivy League schools to advise people on setting up grocery stores and/or plumbing companies. I'm sure these Harvard/Yale/Princeton blockheads can give us all the benefit of their own personal experience. How has that worked so far?

He says the government is too complex; business owners have too hard a time getting aid.

No business owner in his/her right mind goes to the government for aid in doing business.

Hey Comrade Dude, remember the French Revolution? "Laissez faire" ring any bells? That means "Leave me alone." That's how business does business. Nobody goes to the government unless they're sucking up for some big juicy plum contract. That's the Chicago way, isn't it?

But if the Comrade really wants to do soemthing useful for business... rescind socialized medicine and repeal all the silly, destructive regulations your tree-hugger pals in the EPA are using to suffocate the general population. Stop obstructing the Keystone Pipeline. But helping people become more independent is probably the very last thing on this jerk's mind.

And you've got to hand it to the Comrade. No one on earth is more freaking arrogant and cheeky. He completely ignores Congress and the Constitution to install a couple of his totalitarian fellow travelers in the NLRB, and comes around a week later, asking for more autocratic authority. The ink isn't even dry on Congress's law suit.

Hey, jughead -- why not just seize control? Why not do a full-bore Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro? Why the sudden concern about constitutional legality or the public? We all know full well you don't care about the law. So what's this? Political theater? Who do you think you're kidding?

We know now what to expect from you: lies and cheating. Power grabs. Supercilious arrogance. Golf. Trips to Hawaii. Kissing ass overseas. Totally irresponsible spending of our money.

Anyone who agrees to give you more power for anything would have to be either a wannabe diktator like yourself, hoping for a "czar" benediction, or have a hole in their head big enough to drive a truck through. We can't trust you, Comrade. You're a proven liar, cheat, and I'm guessing, some degree of psychopath as well.

What the country's going for is just the opposite -- we're out here trying as hard as we can to get rid of your sorry ass. Only a little more than 10 month and so long, Comrade. And good riddance.

Save the Republic.

Romney -- the timid conservative

2012-01-11T00:16:00.001-06:00

OK, so Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire primary. Big news. It was a foregone conclusion, but the media is still chattng on about it endlessly anyway, like it's a big surprise. "Well, he won the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary, so it looks like he's got it sewn up." I think that's from the mouth of Tim Pawlenty, who's hoping for a cabinet post in the Romney Administration.

You know, there's still 48 more states to go, and the Iowa Caucuses are not binding, meaning the Iowa delegates at the Republican Nominating Convention can change their votes. So big deal.

I actually went to Romney's Web site and looked at his 59 point program. Gingrich keeps saying, "The Wall Street Journal has called it 'timid.'" You know what? It is timid. It's like it's designed to take tiny non-boat-rocking baby steps that conservatives can agree on, but without actually doing much to solve America's problems. In fact, it's designed to not raise objections from anyone at all.

America does have problems. That's how the Comrade got elected. Romney's programs don't do much at all. He promises to repeal nationalized health care. That's the most radical, and I'm sure that was pretty much forced upon him by the prevalence of the Tea Party and the 2010 elections.

He nowhere addresses Social Security, which is just about bankrupt. Nothing about Medicare -- also tottering on the brink of insolvency -- though he does want to give the states block grants to manage their own Medicaid programs. He doesn't say anything about the EPA, and apparently will keep it and its authority in place, although he does want to speed up the approval process for construction and building nuclear plants and stuff like that.

The whole program seems to be predicated on a kind of 1998 snapshot of the USA. Hey, that was a while ago. Things have changed.

Oh, and this is a good one -- he wants to repeal Dudd-Fudd financial regulations -- excellent -- but replace it with a better set of reforms -- yuck. And Oxley-Sarbanes, kept in place for the big corporations, though lightened up for smaller firms.

Who called it "nibbling around the edges" during one of the weekend's debates? The whole program is nibbling around the edges. Nothing very striking about it. Very bland, tepid, supposedly safe, I guess. As I said, not much anyone can object to, because it doesn't really promise very much.

And he wants to do something about China. Difficult there, because if we slap tariffs on imports from China (or anyone else, really), they slap tariffs on our exports to them. That's a bad game to get into in foreign trade. It was one thing that nudged the USA into the Great Depression of the 1930s.

But it's kind of like Romney is saying, "Don't worry. I'm not going to shake things up. Just a few little tweaks and we'll be fine." Then give the inspirational speech about the Founding Fathers, and there we have Mitt Romney.

This isn't going to work. It's going to take some broader and bolder action to "Restore America," as Romney's backers claim to support. Restoring it to what? 1995? Sorry, no Internet Bubble to keep it all afloat.

Romney's conservatism is just way too damn conservative. Nothing will change. Very little will improve. He's not "fixing" anything, not redirecting anything. More like preserving all the bullshit so as to avoid upsetting anyone. And then in 2016, the dems will run another communist.

This just doesn't work for me, and I'm totally talking policy here. I don't see any "vision" of America. Just don't see it in the 59 points.

I wish they'd get into all this in some detail in the debates. And the Comrade will kill Romney -- Romney just doesnt have much to fight back with.

I don't know. I'm a big blues fan, you know. Love the gritty "Woke up this mo'nin', rain pourin' down" raunchy raw kind of thing. These endless riffs that make you want to just scream. Not the British. The British are just too damn polite. Ever hear the Rolling Stones make a mess of Motown? (I know, technically not blues, but still.... makes me think of "Motor City's Burning." That was blues.)

Romney's conservatism is kinda like British blues. It's OK. Just not outstanding. Not passionate. No real soul to it. Not going to make anyone scream.

Save the Republic.

The positive side of negative -- is there one?

2012-01-10T16:04:00.000-06:00

You know, thinking about negative ads in general...

The candidates all give themselves this convenient out by saying, "Well, we're just getting him ready for when Obama goes after him."

Yeah, right.

However, talking a while back with a political friend about George W. Bush and the incredible trashing he took during the last two years of his term in office, we both wondered, "Why the hell didn't he fight back?"

By remaining silent, even with movies premiering that featured his assassination, Bush effectively set the table for the Comrade. When you're a public figure, I guess you have to assume that a large portion of the public will believe anything they hear. You kinda have to defend yourself against even the stupidest accusations or the barely-interested assume the accusations are true.

In Gingrich attacking Romney over Romney's record at Bain Capital, Gingrich also appears to be attacking capitlism -- which is just too easy for the socialists to turn around. As well, saw Gingrich's interview with Megyn Kelly about all this, and he's walking a very fine line here, trying to define the boundary between "corporate looting" and "redirecting capital." I mean, sometime it gets to a point where you have to conclude, this business isn't going anywhere, no matter how well-capitalized it is. The funds will just drip away keeping the doors open, not enough potential revenues to make it an ongoing concern.

In every case, this is a pretty subjective call. And I'm a person whose career has been like the kiss of death for nearly every company I ever worked for. They've all been bought out, shut down, restructured, downsized, etc. etc. Makes my resume look pretty hairy. I mean, would you want to hire someone who attended the funerals of the last five or six companies she worked for? (High-tech businesses and industries... 'Nuff said? Same high-tech now allows me to be self-employed and work in my pjs.)

At any rate, I kinda wish the Republicans would keep their focus on knocking the Comrade out of the box rather than damaging each other. I mean, "Keep your eye upon the donut and not upon the hole." Right?

I'd like to direct this question to Dana Perino if she's listening: Why didn't George W. fight back? He had a whole team -- you and others -- to do the dirty work. He wouldn't have to be personally involved.

Just wondering.

Save the Republic.

In defense of capitalism

2012-01-09T13:26:00.000-06:00

A long time ago, Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of England during WWII, noted that democracy is a terrible system, but it's better than anything else we have.

Same is true of capitalism. Let's not paint it as another version of Utopia.

Capitalism is almost unbelievably productive, ruthlessly efficient, and where capitalism is in operation, there's usually never enough labor, ostentatious wealth, and so much innovation and development in products and services, it's hard to keep track. Choices for ordinary consumers abound -- including low-cost alternatives for the non-wealthy.

Capitalism is also very unforgiving. Money flows toward success and useful innovation. It will support even what looks like pretty screwy ideas, if their originators can create a market for them. It dumps the dubious, the lazy, the obsolete. And it does so with a dizzying speed. This is where the efficiency comes in.

Take, for instance, paper companies. Even 20 years ago, paper companies were huge, rich corporations. They owned thousands of acres of forestlands, produced a wide range of products -- not only paper, but building materials. Some of them had such large mills, they built their own power geneation plants and sold the excess energy to local towns. They had enormous untapped resouces in their forests, even developed new types of trees to grow fast and produce a lot of pulp, employed hundreds of thousands of people in pretty good-paying jobs.

What happened? Email, mostly. The Internet. Add the tree-huggers who thought the paper companies were a big fat target they could humiliate and knock down, or at least make it so expensive for the paper companies to do business, they'd re-think growth plans. So now all of the big paper companies are struggling. Many have shut down, merged witn others, restructured. Nearly all have divested their forests. Many have greatly narrowed their focus -- they do ONLY lumber, ONLY office papers, ONLY packaging.

Maine and northern Wisconsin, along with many areas of the South, have suffered through this. In many towns, the paper mill was the largest employer.

But see, to continue to support the paper industry as it was about 1985 or 1990 would be a huge waste. In fact, for about a decade -- and perhaps continuing -- the biggest problem the paper industry faced was over production and over-capacity for production. The market had too much paper, the price went down, the producers and distributors and everyone else associated suffered.

So what's the answer? Should the government have bailed out the paper companies to save all those jobs? So the paper companies could continue to crank out tons of product nobody wants or buys?

Even worse is the capital tied up in (in this case), the paper companies. By one estimate, it costs about $1 billion to build a new mill. Many functioning paper machines are 100 years old or more. They aren't very complicated machines and have been retooled over time, including for recycling operations, but China is building brand new, computer-operated mills and machines. Should American investors put more money into paper, then? Will that bring the industry back?

No. That's good money after bad. The market -- that is, millions of consumers -- decided that they don't need that much paper anymore. Bye-bye.

The capital has long gone somewhere else to support probably electronics or telecommunications or something like that. Something that's still being developed, still growing.

The free market -- capitalism -- is absolutely without pity in support of growth and development, and downright stinking cruel to the useless, the non-productive, the obsolete.

And to throw another platitude at you -- "A rising tide lifts all boats."

America has always been very cruelly capitalist. We often hear the stories of immigrants who came here looking for the streets of gold, and were stunned at how damn hard they had to work to simply stay fed and raise their families. We don't often hear from people who went back to Europe or Asia, tails between their legs, whining about the vicious materialism and lack of compassion.

As it's happened, though, the rewards resulting from capitalism have generally been so vast and mind-boggling that it's been able to support a so-called "safety net" for the disabled, the aged, and others who just can't take care of themselves. That, by itself, is kind of a miracle, but even in America, capitalism can be over-burdended, tweaked and regulated to the point where it's not capitalism anymore -- not free, not fluid, not productive.

There is an end to it. Kill the rewards, you kill the system. You kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

We all become Greeks, screaming at banks for lack of a more accurate target -- the true source of failure being the lazy, the freeloaders, the so-called "privileged victims" of one thing or another, demanding "reparations" for one thing or another. Those who take without giving anything back. The spine and backbone of capitalism is, after all, value-for-value trade at every level. Not giveaways or plums or favors.

So anyway, in defense of some things that have been said about Mitt Romney -- though I'm not overly enamored with him -- he was one of the guys who re-directed capital from failure and waste into new channels that were productive and useful. That's not a bad thing. If he got rich in the process, good for him. He worked for it, took the risk, made some successful calls.

What's the alternative to this? Is it any better?Is it any more secure to attach yourself to someone else's coattails and hang for dear life, for the "free" ride? Does that support individual liberty and fund a free society?

Think about it.

Save the Republic.

Republicans hoping to win with negativity?

2012-01-07T01:45:00.002-06:00

I'm beginning to dislike the primary process. Too much bashing going on.

Actually looked up "Restore Our Future" or whatever it's called -- the Super PAC that's funding Mitt Romney's campaign. No, not funding his campaign, but raising and distributing lots and lots of money ($12 million and change) to organizations that do the anti-Gingrich and anti-Perry ads.

No secret... The Wall Street Journal and other publications have already looked at Restore Our Future. Huge contributions, including donations of $1 million from Nu Skin Corp., F8 LLC, and Eli Publishing. These are all basically Nu Skin Corporation -- with the dummy corporations being prinicipals in Nu Skin donating their own funds. Then there are several members of the Marriott family, as in Marriott Hotels, who gave in the neighborhood of $200,000 to $500,000 each. Astronomical numbers, no? I mean, coming from individuals.

Curious about all of the above-mentioned donors, they're all Mormons. Saints, you know, as in Church of the Latter-Day Saints. I have nothing against Mormons. Been to Salt Lake City and was rather impressed that the streets are so clean.

The Saints weren't such good neighbors 100 years ago or so, but I don't want to dredge all this stuff up, mainly because it's probably totally irrelevant. They don't do polygamy anymore, at least not as an official part of the religion (Sister Wives notwithstanding). Otherwise, Utah would not have been admitted as a state in the USA.

However, I wouldn't like to be a Mormon. They don't drink coffee for one thing. When I was in Salt Lake City, I went for breakfast and asked for coffee, and the waitress promptly brought me a whole carafe all to myself, and with a friendly, understanding smile. I bet she probably smoked, too. (Mormons aren't supposed to smoke, either.) I felt like I'd found a friend, a kindred spirit.

Mormons seem to be relentlessly pleasant. Look at the Osmonds. Maybe that's why it's so hard to believe in what the press is beginning to call Mitt Romney's "authenticity."

Mormons are also kind of died-in-the-wool capitalists, and not always so meticulous about exactly how they make money. And this goes way back, too, and may not be entirely worth mentioning... but on the frontier in Missouri and Illinois, when that was the frontier, the Saints had this attitude that you could short-change and rip-off anyone who wasn't a Mormon. Because the Mormons were privileged, God's Own, and non-Mormons weren't. That simple. So they were extremely -- and I do meant extremely -- accommodating and helpful to each other, and didn't give much of a damn about how they treated anyone else. No one else mattered. Not good neighbors. They got booted out of Missouri and also Illinois. That's how they ended up in "Deseret," Salt Lake City nowadays.

But that's history.

Another source of candidate-bashing is the Ron Paul campaign. Like Romney, Ron Paul also targeted Newt Gingrich, primarily. Paul's people put out some very pro-level stuff, and Gingrich has lots of baggage. However, I find it interesting that Ron Paul, who's been in congress for going on 30 years now, has so little baggage.

I mean, what has Ron Paul accomplished in 30 years?

Do you expect he'd suddenly begin to get along with congress and manage to get anything done as president? This "functionality," for want of a better word, has eluded even the Comrade this season, and the Comrade apparently has more friends in congress than Ron Paul does. Already the Comrade is seizing all kinds of dictatorial powers in order to "get something done." Will Ron Paul do the same?

And then just yesterday or so, someone ran a TV ad in New Hampshire, which is the current stage under siege of a Republican primary, that targeted Jon Huntsman. Huntsman was ambassador to China and adopted two Chinese kids while over there. The ad features Huntsman speaking Chinese and holding a little girl, he and little girl with red dots on their foreheads. Is that supposed to be somehow subversive? Nasty ad, though. Asked if the viewer believed Huntsman had American values. Because of the red dots or because Huntsman speaks Chinese? (I speak French. Does that make me a can-can dancer or an existentialist?)

And the ad ended with "Vote for Ron Paul."

Ron Paul has disavowed the ad, and now large and small-L libertarians are falling all over themselves trying to figure out what nasty snark ran the ad and attributed it to Ron Paul. I supposed that's possible. Perhaps more than possible.

Jon Huntsman is also a Mormon. But I have no doubt he has American values. I actually do agree with some of his political positions, but have only a slight familiarity.

(What is this sudden pervasiveness of Mormons?)

Then there's Santorum, who upset the Iowa primary by running about dead-even with Romney. Santorum is Catholic and apparently making an appeal to Catholics in New Hampshire. Thus far, he's confined his bashing pretty much to the media, but we'll see....

Anyway, so apparently the Republicans are self-destructing. So much bashing going on.

There's actually a reason Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and even Mitt Romney have so much that they can use against each other. It's because they've experienced the chaos and back-stabbing and need-to-compromise of everyday politics. They've all got baggage. None of them are perfect.

There is no perfect. I'd settle for "effective."

So hard to watch the bloodletting when you don't have a horse in the race and just want solutions. I wish they'd stick to policy.

Save the Republic.

"We could be totalitarian, except 'the other side' resisted"

2011-12-24T07:42:00.000-06:00

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.

Dem "victory" on tax cuts? It's all spin

2011-12-23T08:31:00.000-06:00

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.

Had my fill of negativity already

2011-12-21T09:27:00.000-06:00

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.

49ers should think about day games

2011-12-21T08:55:00.000-06:00

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.

Obamanomics feeds on class warfare

2011-12-19T15:03:00.000-06:00

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.

Go ahead, Mr. Prez, wreck the nation; see if that will get you re-elected

2011-12-14T09:14:00.000-06:00

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.

Picking apart Republicans

2011-12-12T05:48:00.000-06:00

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.

The Sgt. Schultz defense: "I know nothing!"

2011-12-09T23:21:00.000-06:00

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.

"Fairness" -- define that, too

2011-12-08T02:10:00.000-06:00

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.

Creating the "Imperial Presidency"

2011-12-07T04:28:00.000-06:00

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:

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.

The mask is off: Leftists openly promote communism for US

2011-12-04T07:12:00.000-06:00

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.

The "Beacon on the Hill" or the sewer in Zucotti Park?

2011-11-30T17:08:00.000-06:00

OK, we've all heard -- to death -- that the 2012 election will be one of the most impactful in American history. True. Probably the most impactful since the 1860 election that brought Lincoln into office and triggered the Civil War.

It's because the split in the nation is very wide, an ideological gap. Basically it's two very different views of the USA.

On the one hand, you the tradtional, conservative view of America as the Beacon on the Hill, the Shining City that supports the ideas of personal liberty based on individual rights, free enterprise, private property and prosperity gained through hard work.

Then we have the alternative view as the USA no better or worse than anyplace else, just a difference flag. And accompanying this view is an equally false perception of the human race as stupid, helpless, criminal, and even vicious. This view presents human beings sort of termnally stupid and incompetent to take care of themselves. (Generally the southern planter's view of black slaves, I might add.)

Which do you prefer? Which best encapsulizes the way you view the human race and the USA?

The Comrade is s proponent of the second view. To his eyes, human beings are drooling imbeciles who need a ruling class of "betters" to take care of them. The flotsam clogging Zucotti Park and other places across the nation are an example of this view. Do they represent the great mass of the human race?

And noting this negative attitude about human beings, Thomas Jefferson once noted: "If men are not fit to rule themselves, how then can they be fit to rule others?"

The Conrade's going to have a real hard time getting elected in 2012 because it's very clear now what he thinks of all of us. And, by the way, how he regards himself and others in the "political class" as a superior segment of the species. His arrogance is monumental and based on nothing but the intellectual snobbery he picked up at Ivy League institutions.

Well, many of the Comrade's principles have been put into motion through various pieces of legislation, but mostly by decree. Have they done any good? Or rather, are they compelling the collaps of the nation in a heap of helpless detritus? The Comrade creates misery by making it illegal -- and at the very least morally questionable -- to behave like a rational and productive individual.

In other words, if you weren't born stupid and helpless, and actually managed to survive the public schools with a whole soul, the Comrade will force to behave that way -- or go to jail.

And because of all this, the Comrade has nothing positive to run on. His record? Of what? Deliberate destruction? He leaves a swathe of closed businesses, unemployed workers, and general trash and used hyp needles in his wake.

So the only tactic he can take in his campaign is to trash his opponents. I think we've already had a little taste of this regarding Herman Cain. But this is only the start.

This may be the most disgusting presidential election the nation has ever seen. But I doubt anyone with any brains or self-respect will be able to stomach, let alone support, these kinds of tactics.

Save the Republic.

Don't forget Rick Perry

2011-11-30T06:37:00.000-06:00

In my little survey the other day about the current Republican field, I didn't mention Rick Perry. I don't think he's got much of a chance right now -- too many gaffes -- but he seems to have improved quite a bit from his first debate appearances, and I think he has some really killer TV ads going.

What I love about his ideas -- and I guess this one comes from his book -- is that as he says, he wants to make Washington DC "inconsequential" in the lives of most Americans.

Love it! I even love the approach and the way it's phrased.

I will also not criticize anything Texas does on immigration because they have a long, long border with Mexico and have been dealing with immigration issues in more depth than just about anyone else, and since Texas joined the union. Matter of fact, Texas' border with Mexico has had historical problems... but we won't go into that here.

Anyway, Rick Perry started off on the worng foot, just kind of got tossed into the pile-up while the game was in play. I think he's adjusting -- making him a pretty quick learner. But it may be too late to repair his rank in the primaries. The trouble was the very high expectations when he announced his candidacy -- before he was really up to steam.

I've noticed, though, that several other candidates have borrowed from Rick Perry. In fact, if the debates are doing something really terrific, they're providng a cross-pollination of ideas. Sort of building a platform as the debates continue. It's kinda cool to see this evolve.

Also thought Rick Perry was A.) way too stiff and formal; and B.) too pugnacious in the first couple debates. He came off as a kind of a bully. He's really not. As he more or less grows into the race, he's getting a lot more likable. He seems a lot more comfortable.

On the other hand, Bachman is getting more and more aggressive, it seems. And no matter what her point, if she's right or wrong, when she goes on the attack, she loses points -- for the same reason Rick Perry did as he attacked Romney early on.

I'm sure Newt Gingrich's "we're all in this together" attitude is something that went a long way to resuurect him in the race. If there's anything I really hate, it's to see the candidates attacking each other. I hope it doesn't start now between Newt and Mitt. They'll both lose.

Anyway just thought this all was worth a mention. I think Rick Perry is being underestimated because of the bad start. But I also doubt he'll be able to capture the nomination -- this time. There will be other elections, as long as we can stop the Comrade from turning the USA into a dictatorial police state.

And that's it for now.

Save the Republic.

Shifting political landscape

2011-11-28T20:55:00.000-06:00

Well, interesting shifts in the political landscape.

Newt Gingrich, who was supposed to be completely out of the running a month ago is now leading the Republican pack -- even beating Romney in some polls. I've always liked Newt -- I wrote about that before. I think he's also kind of in his element at defeating socialism. I think he'd be a good president, I really do. And he's also pragmatic, something the Tea Party doesn't find acceptable, but then the real fanatics on both sides are those who simply refuse to deal with reality -- instead they believe they can impose their own order (or agenda, take your pick) upon it. Reality isn't that flexible. You pretty much have to play it as it lays.

Not slamming the Tea Party, just the way-right fringe (like the way-left now in the White House) seem to think there are easy fixes. There aren't. The Tea Party is correct philosophically, but it's going to take to some time to restore America. It really is. And one reason is because of the damage that's already been done. The OWies are symptomatic. What do you do with a bunch of brainless idiots who cling to fantasy in the teeth of the direst facts of reality? Outside of medicating them and giving them a padlocked meadow somewhere in the Rockies to romp around in? I don't know. You can be sure they will eventually self-destruct... but that takes time, too.

I was willing to stick by Herman Cain for a time. But now another woman came out today, talking about a 13-year affair with him. Who knows if it's true? Certainly the democrats wouldn't want Cain on the Republican ticket -- that would neutalize their race card. What would Janine Garofalo have to talk about then? And certainly the dems are capable of character annihilation -- perhaps more painful than simple assassination. I like Herman Cain. But looks like he's been liked a little too much. Honestly, it breaks my heart.

Also saw an interview with Mitt Romney, and like him a bit more than I have. Funny how everyone on the East Coast seems to believe Romney is the only Republican who can win. Well, no, not funny. The East Coast is so liberal mostly -- at least north of Atlantic City -- and I do believe even eastern Republicans believe they've got to run someone with "liberal leanings," or some kind of "moderate" in order to attract independents. The easterners, looking around them, regard independents as liberal leaning. I'm not convinced that's true. I mean, look at New Hampshire.

These eastern-based Republicans -- who run the party pretty much after all -- like other East and West Coasters, tend to regard the "Fly-over zone" -- that is, everything between the Appalachins and the Rockies -- as inconsequential.

We'll see. Personally, I wouldn't live in California or New York for any reason. And I don't think a liberal or even a Republican moderate has much chance of settting the South on fire.

Anyway, I still worry about Romney and I worry about him in the White House. A little isolated cubicle surrounded by media. And the media is most rabidly leftst. So who's he going to believe? And if he shifts with the wind, where's he going to take the country?

So anyways, I'd be happy with Newt. And it's mainly because I know he understands America. He might screw himself up occasionally, but I think he'd be extra careful what he does to the nation, just out of respect for it. He understands what's at stake.

Quite a different scenario from what we have now, n'est-ce pas?

And Barney Fudd announced today that he's not going to run again. Gee, I'm sorry. I was hoping he'd get another shot at running the House Banking Committee to see what further damage he could do. Maybe grind the US dollar into complete dust? What a jerk. He should have quit 10 years ago -- if he had, the housing market would probably be in much better shape. Bye-bye Barney. Good widdance.

That's enough for now. Been working on another novel. And it's really shaping up. Want to see if I can get it out in time for the campaign. It's kind of a "political thriller," but knowing the way I write, I just won't be able to disregard all characterization and serious themes like the blockbuster type of thing. So I guess I'll have to publish this one myself, too.

Save the Republic. And don't forget -- WE REALLY NEED TO SWEEP THE SENATE!

Laissez-faire by default -- not

2011-11-14T08:13:00.000-06:00

As explained elsewhere in this blog, like years ago, laissez-faire capitalism is when the free market is genuinely free. That is, not regulated by government. And compared to what we got, it would be nice.

The term "laissez-faire" came about when France's Louis XVI asked this Swiss economist named Colbert what could be done to fix France's horrendous economy. See, at the time, the French court had reached a kind of pinnacle of arrogance and corruption. Louis had enjoyed a privileged upbringing and was totally infantile, his wife, Marie-Antoinette, was a spoiled Austrian clothes horse, and everyone else at court just kept taxing everything to support their lifestyles. They taxed the doors and windows of peasant cottages, stuff like that.

There was also a rising bourgeois -- middle class -- of merchants, manufacturers, artisans. They were very hard hit. And complaining.

So Louis asked Colbert for his recommendations. Colbert went to the bourgeois and asked them, "What can your divine monarch and supercilious ruling class do for you to improve your business and your lives?"

The answer was, very simply: "Laissez faire." Which means, leave me the hell alone.

So fast-forward 250 years or thereabouts and here in the USA we have a dolt who thinks he's a king, and a "ruling class" (they wish) in congress who can't do anything but raise taxes to support their lifestyles. Gulfstreams, limos, $30,000 a plate fund raisers, union leaders kissing your butt, pharmas sending you on expensive golf junkets in the Bahamas, etc. etc.

They in congress don't seem to have time to spend on things like developing a national budget -- cuts into their tee-times and attendance at sporting events and parades. So they appointed a committee of 12 to hammer out some kind of a budget.

As Newt Gingrich pointed out not too long ago, the USA already has a committee that's supposed to hammer out a budget. It's called "congress."

Be that as it may, this committee of 12 is supposed to come up with a budget by the end of this week or so, at least by Thanksgving, or supposedly there will be automatic cuts in spending for the military and entitlement programs -- like Medicare, but apparently not aid to useless professors.

And the committee of 12 doesn't seem to be coming up with anything. Doesn't matter, because deep in your heart you know Brain-dead Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, will just table it anyway. The Senate already has 16 budget bills passed by the House, and the Senate is just ignoring them. They have their fingers in their ears and they're humming "Hail to the Chief."

So now the word is, maybe those draconian cuts won't take place, because maybe the committee of 12 will put off the whole budget thing until after the next election.

LET ME ASK -- WHO THE HELL WANTS TO VOTE FOR ANY OF THESE BLOCKHEADS IF THEY CAN'T EVEN PUT A BUDGET TOGETHER? I MEAN, THEY'RE PROVING THEMSELVES TO BE USELESS IDIOTS.

IS THIS WHO YOU WANT REPRESENTING YOU?

And you'd think if the government had no budget, we'd get some kind of nice, happy laissez-faire situation, right?

Wrong -- because where congress fails to legislate all the socialist crap the Comrade wants, he turns loose the dogs of his executive branch to rule by decree. That is, with no input from and apparently no regard for the US public. And congress isn't doing anything to stop these dogs of regulation, even though I'm sure it's entirely unconstitutional.

Here's an idea: Clean Sweep. Throw them all out, along with all the over-paid, power-mad anal-retentive nannies in the executive branch, and start over with nothing but the Constitution.

Sound like a plan?

Oh, and by the way, Louis XVI didn't pay much attention to Colbert or the bourgeois. Marie in her wisdom suggested that if people had no bread, they should resort to cake. And they were both beheaded. And all the ruling class was beheaded. The bourgeois and peasantry had a positive Beheading-Fest at Place de la Concorde, a still-hallowed, large plaza in the very heart of Paris. The carnage went on for months. La Guillotine was invented specially to accommodate the swift, painless, and quite entertaining anihilation of France's upper crust. And their cousins, cooks, seamstresses, barbers, and anyone else who was a known cohort of anyone with even a drop of blue blood.

Just something to keep in mind.

Save the Republic -- but this government we can live very happily without.

President rubs salt into wounds

2011-11-13T08:32:00.000-06:00

Have slacked off on blogging lately because I've been trying not to be too insulting. Wanted to write about the Republican debates. It is so terrific hearing people who have positive ideas and a passion to promote American exceptionalism and capitalism.

But what drives me to write is actually the anger.

So Comrade Butthead has been blaming American citizens and businesses for being "soft" and "lazy," and most recently for not working hard enough to attract foreign trade. What the hell, it's not like blowing off a deal with Canada to secure a reliable source of fuel, is it?

Yeah, jerk, push someone over a cliff then holler down, "Why are you laying down there? Too soft and lazy to work?"

It's getting harder and harder to describe how much I despise this individual who's stinking up the White House, destroying the nation, derailing the future, undermining political and economic institutions, and now has the gall to blame the victim

He really should go live in a little pup tent with his loyal few -- the slimy so-called "occupiers" who have pretty much dwindled down to criminals, drug addicts, mental defectives, and die-hard mooches. The Comrade's true following. I'm sure he'd be totally comfortable with the dopers. That's the wellspring of much of his personal experience, isn't it?

No one else wants to be seen with that sucker anymore.

He's either totally blind. moronically stupid, or taunting us.

In any case, he's an insult to the nation.

Save the Republic.

President continues push to wreck US economy

2011-11-11T12:42:00.000-06:00

Many months ago I wondered in this blog, "What would it be like to have a president who liked the United States."

Apparently we won't know until we dump the Comrade.

Canadian oil sands have been in the news for a time. It's actually oil in heavy sand deposits, and there's plenty of it. I believe we even have some of it in the US. Well, anyway, Canada is mining it, and was hoping to get the US to buy it and refine it. We'd have to build a pipeline extension from central Canada to refineries located around Kansas City (it looks like) and in Texas.

This project would replace a part of the oil we buy from the Middle East and probably South America -- people who generally hate the US and only want to exploit us, the US being an endlessly wealthy fat cat, you know. The project would also create thousands of good-paying jobs, and for that reason, the labors unions have been promoting it.

But the environmentalists are appalled. Involving the US in this project would infinitely delay our migration into residential tree houses in the redwood forest. Or something like that. Who the hell knows what the environmentalists are after? Some kind of anti-tchnology Ted Kazinski scenario.

So Comrade Blockhead in the White House, being torn between sucking up to the unions or to the environmentalists, has "decided" not to decide anything about this. He says he'll made a decision about it -- after the next election.

Well, Canada isn't waiting. Canada has a couple billion dollars (or loonies, in Canada) sunk into developing the oil sands, and they have offers from other nations, like Red China.

Believe it was Senator John McCain who noted that the Comrade voted "present" on this project, just as the Comrade regularly voted present on just about everything while he was in the Illinois State Assembly. After all, you don't want to leave a record.

But, Comrade Butthead, copping out is also a decision, and a very bad one. We won't forget.

Save the Republic.

The White House game plan

2011-11-02T14:50:00.000-05:00

Well, I've thought about this long and hard, and listen to endless news reports, and have read Saul Alinsky. So I think the outline of the Comrade's long-term plan is emerging. I'll try to break it down into steps:

1. Inheriting a big economic mess was probably the greatest "opportunity" (a la Ram Emanual) the Comrade could have received. It laid the perfect ground work for the rest of his "plan."

2. Spend the USA into uncontrollable debt, disguising efforts as "stimulus" to get the economy going.

3. Hamstring private enterprise so that there's no legal way for them to do business profitably.

4. Meanwhile, shove through congress (while he had both houses in the first two years) every addle-brained, impractical, socialist scheme you can think of.

5. Create a "permanent" class of unemployed and unemployable -- through destructive economic policies and by encouraging citizens to become dependent on the federal and state governments.

6. Addenda to #5. -- prop up state goverments for the time being with things like Stimulus #1 and #2, which is probably never going to get through congress.

7. Get Van Jones and the reconstituted Acorn organizations to go amongst the unemployed and unemployable, try to unite them behind some kind of "brotherhood of misery" banner. Maybe they plant themselves on Wall Street.

8. Blame Republicans for all this. Or not even Republicans necessarily, but since Republicans are political rivals, they're a useful and available target. But also blame: the rich, Wall Street, banks, or anyone but the unions, the unemployed, and the unemployable.

9. Comrade will use the "bully pulpit" of his position to try to whip up a frenzy among the newly-minted, permanent "underclass" in the USA so that they'll frighten and intimidate the rest of the nation into seeing communism as some kind of attractive alternative. The goal here is to incite social unrest, even violence. To foment a "manageable" revolution. Or even even unmanageable if that's the best he can do.

10. Looking ahead -- phase out state governments and replace them with an overweening federal authority.

Ta-da! The USA is now a sorry replica of every failed state that came before it. All to the glory of Karl Marx.

But you know, Americans aren't buying all this crap. The OWies on Wall Street and elsewhere are starting to look more and more like a bunch of drug addicts, psychopaths, and professional mooches -- the kind of people who would jump in front of a train so they'd qualify for disability support. That and a bunch of really fringe loonies and whiners.

The Comrade's plan to achieve all of this in one four-year term. It hasn't worked. For one thing, the Tea Party. ("We shall not be moved.") Another big problem the Comrade has had is that, being Americans by tradition as well as by birth, most citizens -- even the dregs -- aren't familiar with the socialist-communist complaints and haven't figured out yet the communism is supposed to be the answer. Matter of fact, as every government "solution" fails, it becomes more and more obvious that government aid and assistance is the largest part of the problem.

So most us are sitting out here searching for the Comrade's replacement and wondering why the EPA has turned into such a terrorist organization in recent years. And can't figure out why we're buying foreign oil instead of developing our own resources. We're just not getting it. Duh....

Briefly -- all the crap isn't working. But give the Comrade another four years, and he'll wreak even more havoc on free enterprise and our tradition of a civil society.

He has to go.

Save the Republic.

So the president is Greek?

2011-11-01T17:49:00.000-05:00

So last week Greece almost defaulted on its loans again -- debt equals 120% or so of that country's gross annual economic output -- and even New York Stock Exchange traders got nervous. I think it's not so much that the NYSE owns a big chunk of Greek bonds or whatever, but if Greece goes down, it will have unhappy impacts on nations like Germany and France and others in the European Union, who have been propping Greece up economically. And the NYSE does hold a lot of debt and investment in EU enterprises.

So the EU struck this deal to bail out Greece. Greek banks have to accept 50% back on their loans, more social benefits will be cut from Greek life, and Germany and the others will kick in more funds to keep Greece alive for a few more months, at least until the next due date on their loan payments. Apparently the EU plans to borrow from China. Everyone cheered. The crisi is solved.

Oh yeah? Well, the Greeks might have something to say about that. The Greek head of state has decided to put the whole measure to a public referendum to secure some public support for it. Good idea for him, since Greeks are damn sick and tired of having other nations threaten to stop paying their bills. At the prospect of losing their social welfare benefits, the Greeks have been rioting non-stop. Rioting has become sort of like a national sport in Greece. I wouldn't be surprised if they suggested it as an new event in the next Olympics.

See, in Greece, if you're a hair dresser you can retire at age 50 with a government pension because you're involved in "hazardous" work.

My stars. how then do they classify those dancers who break the dishes? Talk about life-threatenting work.

So anyway, the Greeks seem to be laboring under the delusion that they have options.

They don't. Except to go down in flames.

Not that the USA is in much better shape. US debt now is 100% of our gross annual economic output, and rising fast due to interest demands. If we drop another point on the S&P Index -- which is more than likely -- interest on the debt will rise.

And the Comrade is out on his little campaign tours, promising to pay everyone's student loans, pay their mortgages, pay for their health care and prescriptions, etc. etc. Now, in a truly horrifying development, the Comrade is, as we speak, on a jet bound for France to discuss the impending collapse of the EU.

No doubt the Comrade will volunteer the US to provide some kind of economic aid to prop them up. Which the Comrade willl have to borrow from the Chinese. Or, the Comrade could just let the EU borrow directly from the Chinese, but I guess that's too simple and straightforward. I mean, look at it this way -- the Comrade has found another means of saddling us with even more crippling debt to more quickly anihilate the US economy and free enterprise.

I think the dispute about the Comrade being born outside the USA just may be true. I suspect deep in his cold little heart the Comrade's Greek.

Enough for now.

Save the Republic.

What happens at the DOJ stays at the DOJ?

2011-10-28T06:02:00.000-05:00

Another interesting development over at the Department of Justice Not only did Operation Fast & Furious, the federal program to sell lethal weapons to Mexican drug lords, completely slip Attorney General Eric Holder's mind, but now he wants to be able to lie to the public when he feels like it. It seems he does anyway, but it is against the rules.

Ever hear of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). That's the provision that allows people like UFO hunters to pester the CIA and FBI and those kinds of folks to dig through their old archives looking for evidence of Project Majestic and stuff like that.

Or suppose you're in congress, and wanted to review a couple federal warrants, or inter-departmental memos about exactly HOW to sell lethal weapons to Mexican drug lords. Under the FOIA rules, the federal bureaus and agencies have to go through their files, find the information, black out whole pages that might contain classified stuff, and send it to you.

Eric Holder wants to be able to lie to you, so he can say, "Sorry, we have no record of that."

Man, if you want to bullet-proof the federal government, this is the way. No one could ever sue these bastards, or even gather information from them for a suit against someone else. Or even know what the hell the Dept. of Justice is even doing all day.

Amazing.

Not only is this current regime wildly irresponsble, now they don't even think they should be held accountable for what they do.

Yeah, what happens at Justice stays at Justice, is that it?

What the heck kind of a show is Comrade running, anyway?

This Holder critter needs to resign, big time.

Save the Republic.

Ooies in Oakland -- Why not occupy Pelosi's house?

2011-10-26T14:53:00.000-05:00

Just saw on the news that the "OOies" -- that is, Occupy Oakland -- were run off last night by police with tear gas. The crowd wouldn't disperse when politely asked. They started throwing garbage and eggs at the cops, who threw back tear gas.

Why don't they move their HQ to Pazzo Pelosi's house in San Francisco? Or her vineyard? Plenty of room there. And Pazzo is sympathetic. Surely she'd be willing to let them crap on her lawn and beat tom-toms under her window all night.

She's rich, too. So the OOies could continue their protest against the wealthy without breaking their staggering steps. Who could ask for more?

Just a suggestion.

Save the Republic.

There goes the health care industry

2011-10-26T14:18:00.000-05:00

A couple intereting developments in socialized medicine in the USA.

Last week or so, that Sibelius person who runs things in DC announced that the long-term health care provision in the socialized medicine act is more or less defunct. "Long-term health care" refers to an extended stay in someplace like a rehab center or nursing home, for instance, after a stroke or a serious car accident.

Under socialized medicine, the plan was to get a whole bunch of people to sign up (and we'd all just flock to it), and pay into the system for about 10 years before we were eligible for any benefits. Meanwhile, the money paid in would go toward funding socialized medicine in general. A Ponzi scheme that appears to use Social Security as a financial prototype.

Anyway, the only people who signed up for long-term care under socialized medicine apparently are people who NEED long-term right now. In other words, the system isn't financially sound (or actuarially sound, to use the insurance word). Not enough healthy people signing up. Not enough money collected to fund long-term care nor to help fund socialized medicine generally.

So Sibelius said something like the program was going to be canceled. Only the Comrade doesn't want that.

Well, then he can pay for it. How's that? Crack open your wallet, fat cat. Get your unions to buy into it. That might work. Oh, but the unions are exempt from socialized medicine. Sorry, I forgot.

In another area -- and this will surely go a long way toward killing off seniors -- health care providers' pay under Medicare is going to be reduced.

The so-called "Doc Fix" was not included in the socialized medicine bill. The Doc Fix was legislation that adjusts the amount that doctors and others are paid for the services they provide for seniors with Medicare. In the past, these payment amounts were reviewed every year or so and were adjusted for inflation or whatever. However, no Doc Fix has been passed since the socialized medicine bill went through. Most pundits believed this was because if doctors had to be paid, it would show that socialized medicine was financially unsustainable. So congress just ignored it.

The American Medical Assn., which really doesn't represent the majority of doctors in the US, wanted congress et. al., to scrap this system of annual reviews all together and replace it with something more stable. Well, careful what you wish for, dudes.

A group of bureaucrats known collectively as MedPac are now running the socialized medicine system in America. MedPac has decided to, yes, do away with the annual reviews for doctor pay and replace it -- with a 10-year program that will steadily but surely reduce Medican payments to doctors by about 30%.

General practitioners will get a 1% raise, but then their pay rate will be frozen for the next 10 years. Specialists are hardest hit. They get a 5.9% reduction in their pay each year for the next three years, then the rate is frozen for the next seven years.

The object is to get doctor pay aligned with pay for, like, hospital orderlies and the cleaning crew. You know, SEIU members.

You know what the impact of this is going to be. Right now, many doctors refuse to see Medicare patients because Medicare pays only about half of what doctors charge. Like $300.00 to do hip replacement surgery. Doctors -- and hospitals, by the way -- make up these losses by charging twice as much to insured patients. It's called "cost shifting," and it's the main reason why health insurance costs so much and why insurance premiums are skyrocketing.

This isn't going to get any better. And it strikes hardest at seniors on Medicare.

Doctors who work with Medicare patients will not be able to keep their offices open, hire staff, pay their own bills. Specialists won't be allowed to charge any more than GPs, even though many of them see far fewer patients.

The inevitable result will be rationing. Dr. Deathwish/Berwick and Sibelius are, I suppose, in the throes of orgasm right now. "We did it!" they shriek, jumping up and down and throwing confetti. "We've destroyed the health care industry in America!"

So, if you can't get the seniors in line behind your policies -- and a whole bunch of seniors actually voted for these policies, in hopes of increasing their freebies (see AARP) -- the simplest thing is to just kill them off. It's called attrition. Or maybe serves-you-right.

Nice, huh?

Save the Republic.

White House tries "end run" around congress?

2011-10-25T12:31:00.001-05:00

I find it interesting and somewhat sociopathic that the Comrade apparently believes seizing autocratic control of the U.S. government is the only way to "get something done." Yet he apparently supported Kadaffi's rather grim death, Kadaffi being only the latest in a long line of totalitarians who met rather sorry and bloody ends.

What makes the Comrade any different from them?

See, whether you decide if he's sociopath or a narcissist, the Comrade's greatest failure is his inability to see himself as anything but heroic and his opponents as anything more than competition. He can't see the other side. And the "other side" in this case is government limited by the US Constitution.

He's right. Everyone who opposes him is wrong. Any questions?

So, being a narcissist/sociopath, he somehow believes it's OK for him to ignore any but his own voice.

He's right. Everyone who opposes him is wrong. Very simple, really.

Now he's openly doing all he can to crank up operations in the executive branch to get his policies put into place, since the US Congress won't approve them.

The Comrade blames the Republicans for congress's failure to support him. The truth is, the democratics in congress don't support him, either, except for Brain-dead Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader. And all Reid can manage to do is to throw a wrench into the works of the US Senate so that it's unable to look at or debate or vote on anything. And that's enough to neutralize congress.

By contrast, the Republican-lead House of Representatives is teeming with dozens of new ideas to fix the economy, kick-start trade, clean up the mortgage mess, etc. etc. But once any of this legislation passes the House, Harry Reid pigeon-holes it in the Senate, won't even let anything be taken up on the floor. Brain-dead Harry Reid is, well, brain dead.

The US government is structured in such a way that when we can't get a majority to support a particular policy or action, then it can't be enacted.

The Comrade is extremely uncomfortable with this, because he can't get any support from anyone -- except about 21% of far-left socialist-communist die-hards -- for aything he's proposing. The Comrade is extremely pissed off that nobody loves him anymore. But, convinced that he's still "right," despite the complete lack of any significant public or political support, he wants to do what he wants to do, and to the hell with the public and their representatives.

He's a diktator. Or wants to be. But he's hamstrung by the Constitution.

That's the Constitution's main job, doofus. That's what it's there for. To take the wind out of your sails and spare some personal and political liberty for the rest of us.

Good to know it's still working.

But with people like Jesse Jackson Jr. waddling around, whining about a "congressional rebellion," how long will that last? And how the hell can congress be rebelling? Congress was never intended to just fall in line behind the president. The legislative branch has just as much power and authority as the executive branch. Even Brain-dead Harry Reid can't get around that one.

So the Comrade says, "I want to turn this free, capitalistic nation into a socialist workers' paradise, just lilke Cuba, the USSR, Venezuela, Red China." The rest of the nation says no.

He doesn't think this kind of opposition should stop him. But then he's apparently a narcissistic sociopath who can't see the other side.

Save the Republic. Vote this clown out of office.

Nobody really likes a diktator

2011-10-20T23:04:00.000-05:00

Hope the Comrade has closely watched those videos of Kadafffi's final moments.

Nobody likes a diktator, Comrade. It never ends well for them.

Save the Republic.

Biden comes out early with Halloween scare tactics

2011-10-20T15:56:00.000-05:00

If I had the time and wanted to waste some money, I'd send Vice President Joe Biden a set of those wax vampire teeth kids used to have on Halloween. If the FDA hasn't banned them for being dangerously fun. Plus, they tasted like Bazooka chewing gum, maybe a carcinogen, no? (If you continually feed rhesus monkeys 33 pounds of chewing gum every two hours, they probably will get sick and die.)

But Joe's out of the Halloween box just a little early. "O-o-o-o-oh kids, you'll be raped and murdered if congress doesn't pass the Job Killer Bill."

In a separate event, he made an appearance at a grammar school and lectured a class of 8-year-olds on how this bill should be passed. Think they'll write their congressmen? Most of them were sittng there quite bored and confused. I mean, this is the clown they were promised?

I don't know where Joe Biden has spent most of life, but seems to me that the police are funded by local states and municipalities. Being very often unionized, I'm sure the police benefited from Stimulus I, but actual statistics indicate that crime has been going down, not up.

So Joe Biden is basically full of crap. But we all knew that. Doesn't stop him from mounting the ramparts to wave some kind of flag. "Tax the rich! Support the unions!"

And all the money that goes there will eventually be recycled, through donations, into the Comrade's campaign fund.

I'm insulted by this garbage. Also by the Owies, who don't seem to have any sense or any but personal problems, like with hygiene, but who apparently are supposed to be plucking the heartstrings of America. Here's a hint: white trash has never been sympathetic.

This is the Comrade on the campaign trail. He's been a disater as president, so he goes out and does what he knows how to do: tell lies and raise rabble.

And stupid, clueless Joe Biden helps him work the crowd.

You want rape, Joe? A woman says she was raped by an Owie at a rally in Cleveland. What's really interesting is the media response. No attempt to identify the alleged perpetrator. Instead the lamestream media was all in a tizzy asking, "What kind of impact will this have on the movement?"

I didn't see Joe Biden rushing out to Cleveland to comfort the victim and lead the charge against the thug who assaulted her. 'Course, that's not his job. His job is to make a damnfool out of himself to spread a message so stupid even the Comrade doesn't want to be directly associated with it.

And now all over America Online, banner ads showing a smiling and confident First Family, urging people to sign up... for something. He needs the naive and ignorant vote. Appealing to the 13 and 14-year-olds on AOL? No one old enough to pay their own rent gives him any real attention anymore.

Comes down to same old thing -- Do you believe this b.s. or your own eyes?

It's up to you.

Save the Republic.

The revolution has arrived! And it looks kinda silly

2011-10-19T15:41:00.000-05:00

Just read an interesting article in the 10/18 Wall Street Journal by pollster Doug Schoen. Apparently his company sent someone down to Wall Street to actually survey the Owies, find out who they are, what they do, what they want, etc.

From the article:

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).

What the Owies seem to really want is revolution. Apparently many of them have been poised and waiting for this moment since 1965, and certainly since Woodstock.

To wit:

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Schoen goes on to discuss the political dangers the dems face by supporting these wingnuts. Like, David Fluff, White House mouthpiece, has noted that the Owies are representative of many Americans (which they aren't, by the way; the USA is in majority right of center), and Nancy Pelosi almost squeezed out a crocodile tear talking about them.

So Pazzo and Comrade, go ahead, embrace these loonies. See if that gets you re-elected. Yeah, Vive la revolution!

Meanwhile, another poll shows that the American city with the most millionnaires and highest per capita income is... wait for it... Washington, DC.

(Pause here, laughing, coffee shooting out my nose.)

Thus the Owies may be in the wrong place -- on several counts. As I've indicated several times, the Fat Cats and the greed on Wall Street is far surpassed the Fat Cats and the greed inside the Beltway.

Probably write more later.

Meanwhile, Save the Republic.

Missing the Solyndra issue

2011-10-18T03:26:00.000-05:00

I listened to Darrel Issa (R-CA, heads up some oversight committee in congress making sure government corruption doesn't get TOTALLY out of hand) about Solyndra, and also a couple other pundits talking about it. And it occurs to me that people -- especially congresscritters -- are missing the key issue about Solyndra.

Seems to me that many other people are ticked off about the feds "picking winners and losers," and Solyndra -- a company set up to produce solar panels -- came in as a definite loser.

But that's not the point. Unlike myself and many others, Issa isn't concerned about the feds "investing" in private industry, or "fostering growth" as they like to pretend.

No, the real issue about Solyndra is that that company was tottering on the brink of bankruptcy when the Comrade gave it something like $527 million dollars. Wasn't that just shortly before Solyndra declared bankruptcy? I mean, at the time, nobody had much hope for that company's continued existence.

See, the money was never intended to support Solyndra and/or ensure its existence. The money was intended -- and apparently was used -- to pay back the company's key investors before it declared bankruptcy and ran out on its creditors. Think very high-level money laundering.

And, curiously enough, one of the key investors in Solyndra is a dem "bundler." That is, he raises funds from a number of different donors, then bundles them up and doles them out to whichever politician he deems "worthy" of them.

He gave a whole pile of money to the Comrade.

See how that works?

Maybe the Wall Street Owies should ponder on Solyndra for a while if they want something to really whine about.

It just amazes me how the Comrade manages to pilfer money out of the public treasury to support his campaigns. Often taking a round-about route, like running it throught the unions first, or some other leech organization. Give the money, jobs, contracts to them, they turn around and donate it to the Comrade. Who ends up footing the bill? You guessed it.

What I find stupefying, though, is that the Comrade is so ready to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Once he destroys the middle class and strips the rich of everything, he'll have no place else to go. No one else to rob. He's not thinking far enough ahead.

That's it for right now.

Save the Republic.

Wall street protesters: "Give me your money"

2011-10-17T15:46:00.000-05:00

The so-called "occupy Wall Street" protesters -- Owies?? -- seem to be either overtaken by marxists or are clarifying their message.

Bottom line, what they seem to be saying is: "You have money. Give it to me."

The truth is, you have to run that kind of demand through congress -- that would legalize the theft.

The Owies don't seem to have the wherewithal to do that. They seem to be mainly competent in pooping on police cars, peeing in public, sharing drugs and needles, and making lots of noise.

So this is "class warfare"? This is the "class" we're all supposed to be concerned about?

Looks like trash to me, I'm sorry.

And now they seem to be threatening violence. In Rome, Italy, at an apparently sympathetic protest, violence actually did break out. Don't know the details. Don't care to know.

But it's unconscionable that the Comrade and the "lamestream" media seem to be egging these people on. They're rabble, you know, I'm not even sure they're marxists -- but those with the megaphones are. And they could be just trying to co-opt the Owies. Who knows? Good grief, if this is the Comrade's constituency, he's so far left as to be completely disconnected from the nation. Which he is, left's face it.

New York's Mayor Bloomberg first defended the Owies, and many people continue to try to explain them, empathize with them, etc. Then Bloomberg tried to sweep them out of Zuccotti Park near Wall Street because, apparently, the stench and filth is intolerable. They wouldn't move and apparently Bloomberg and the cops are afraid of violence. With such a rabble of unruly and apparently only half-civilized people, violence is always possible -- being uninformed and inarticulate, violence and acting out are all they can do. Especially when they don't know what they want, except other peoples' money.

But to pretned they represent any significant segment of the US population is quite insulting to us "53%-ers."

Save the Republic.

Comrade offering grounds for impeachment?

2011-10-12T16:07:00.000-05:00

Well, as expected, the Comrade's Job Killer Bill failed in the dem-dominated US Senate. He can't even blame that on Republicans. A member of the House said the bill was offered there, but none of the dem members of the House wanted to sign on to sponsor it.

So it's dead in the water. Nobody wants it. Even the Comrade's comrades won't touch it with a fork. Not even Durbin? Not even Pelosi? Just think about it.

So the Comrade addressed somethng called the Jobs Council today, and recommended that, since the bill failed, he and his people should "scour" their rules and regulations "to find access to act administratively without an authorization from congress."

In other words, he's saying, "Screw congress. Enact the provisions of the bill as bureaucratic regulatios and executive orders."

So, no surprise, the Comrade is on the record as an autocrat and a diktator.

This guy's a real piece of work, huh?

This moron is running America?

He should be impeached. He seems to be confusing the USA with Venezuela or Iran.

Save the Republic.

Iran the greatest danger to the world

2011-10-12T07:39:00.000-05:00

Today Atty General Eric Holder announced that the feds had arrested a guy with dual US-Iranian citizenship in a plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the US in Washington, DC, and also to blow up the Israeli embassy (in Argentina or the US?) and the Saudi embassy in Argentina. This Iranian, named something like Arbabisar (maybe we should call him Arbeit-mach-frei, the slogan that hung over the gate to Auschwitz), was working with the Mexican drug cartel, the Zetas, to set the whole thing up.

Apparently Iran had promised the Zetas $1.5 million and a whole bunch of opium in exchange for their help. Opium is a huge cash crop in the Middle East, you know. That's where opium originated

And I suppose Eric Holder would have sold them the weapons.

Actually. Arbabisar contacted a person he believed to be a member of the Zetas, but the guy was a DEA informant. Arbabisar also was working with another Iranian, Shakura or something like that, who's in Iran, or someplace, right now.

Strikes me as a little strange that Arbabisar was arrested Sept. 29, and the event and the plot weren't revealed until yesterday, Oct. 11. I suppose it's Holder's way of demonstrating that he's doing something in office: having press conferences.

I really believe Iran is the greatest danger to world peace, mainly because it's developing nuclear weapons. And nobody's really doing much to stop them, except Israel. And the Comrade just isn't very fond of Jews, apparently, and doesn't seem to grasp that while Iran wants to push Israel into the sea, the Really Big Score for them is the Great Satan, the USA. Iranian president Abracadabrajab is crazy enough to actually do it.

And now maybe Eric Holder is getting an inkling of why the USA should secure its borders. And really, it's kinda stupid to not secure your borders. I mean, one of the definitions of a "cell" is that it's self-contained. It's like a biological principle that any stand-alone life form is defined by its borders. But apparently Holder doesn't understand "entityship" or believes it shouldn't apply to the USA. You'll have to ask him why. Maybe that's what he regards as "democracy." Pretty stupid to me.

And so much for the Comrade's moronic faith in Iran's "good intentions." 'Course, if he hadn't figured out before now that Iran actually believes it's at war with us, he's probably just completely incapable of rational thought altogether. Blinded by an idiotic ideology, you might say. "We are the world" and all that jazz.

That's all. I'm very tired.

Save the Republic.

Eric Holder needs to resign

2011-10-10T13:58:00.000-05:00

Do you know what the Peter Principle is? It states that in many cases, people will continue to be promoted to the level of their incompetence. That is, to a job that's just beyond their capabilities. Like Eric Holder as US Attorney General.

Darrel Issa (R, CA), head of the congressional committee that asks questions about what the feds are doing to America (or something like that), has been trying to unravel the so-called "Fast & Furious" scandal. See, the ATF -- those folks who brought us the Ruby Ridge and David Koresh debacles -- apparently with assists from the FBI and DEA, have overseen the sale of at least 1,500 high-powered guns to "straw buyers" in the USA. The straw buyers act as conduits -- they turn around and sell the guns to Mexican drug cartels.

Under auspices of Eric Holder's Department of Justice, the ATF, FBI, and DEA have joined forces to make sure that these guns went to straw buyers, who in turn, sold them to Mexican drug cartels. In the cutesy language of law enforcement agencies, they let the guns "walk." Walk across the border, so they could be used to slaughter Mexican grammar school teachers, for example, and US border agents.

So in the congressional hearings, Issa asked Holder basically, "What the hell were you thinking?"

Holder answered, in essence, "What? Me? Thinking? That's not my job."

Holder's been so busy absolving Black Panthers of violating the voting rights of white people in Philadelphia and crafting legal loopholes so that Islamo-terrorists can run free and blow up a few more American cities that he hasn't had time to think about much else.

Holder's last job was defending terrorists in federal courts. So as chief of the Justice Dept... I mean, isn't that a little bit like putting, oh I don't know, Bonnie & Clyde, in charge of bank security? I mean, who picked this clown?

You see, Holder says he gets 100 "memos" a week. These are written documents that describe what his department is doing. He hasn't the time to bother reading them. But isn't managing the Dept. of Justice precisely his job? I mean, if he's too busy to run the Dept. of Justice, what's he getting paid for exactly? Seeing what he can do to skew DOJ in the direction of "social justice"?

Apparently he regards the arming of Mexican drug cartels as a useful function of establishing "social justice." I mean, killing US border guards would definitely enhance illegal border crosssings. See how nicely that works for the democrats?

The other theory that seems to explain Holder's lunacy is that he wanted all kinds of US-made weapons in Mexico, wanted the guns to be found at crime scenes, etc., so that he could say, "See, we need to more strictly control guns in the USA." But when you've actually ORDERED your department to make sure US-made weapons go to Mexican drug lords... well, that kinda screws up that scheme, doesn't it? I mean, the gun dealers didn't want to sell the guns to the straw buyers. The ATF insisted they do it.

So, reminiscent of Sgt. Shultz in "Hogan's Heroes," Holder announces, "I know nothing!" And the Comrade supports him. Or kinda like the driver who killed someone with his car claiming that it wasn't his fault because he was drunk at the time. (And if you're an illegal alien in the US, that seems to be a valid defense.)

So should this blockhead continue to hold any position of authority in the US government?

If Holder had any honor, he'd resign. But there you go.

Save the Republic.

Steve Jobs, R.I.P.

2011-10-06T00:54:00.000-05:00

Got to say, I'm not now and never have been a fan of Mac/Apple computers. I don't have an iPad or an iPhone, and don't really want either one. But I still feel compelled to pay a tribute to one of the people who invented the 21st century.

I don't know anything about Steve Jobs. Have heard he was hard-driving and somewhat eccentric -- that is, very individualistic. And I suspect that's only part of what it takes to accomplish what Steve Jobs accomplished.

A man who worked for Xerox's PARC laboratory told me a story about many years ago, two fresh-faced kids touring the facility. PARC, by the way, was Xerox's very high-tech research center. It's closed now, I believe, and Xerox sold the patents and licenses on some of the remaining undeveloped concepts produced there.

At any rate, according to this man's story, these two computer geeks, Jobs and Wozniak, barely beyond their teen years, visited PARC and were given a demonstration of a very primitive graphic interface that employed icons and stuff like that instead of making users go through those long, long lists of DOS files. Xerox had no plans to do anything with it, but it was interesting.

Next thing that happened was the Macintosh, wtih that "user-friendly" interface featuring little cartoons of file folders, spinning hourglasses, and tiny hands to push things around the screen. It was cute. And more than that, Jobs and Wozniak made it useful.

Anyone but me recall that 1984 Super Bowl ad with the woman running into the grim, smoky meeting room... a scene taken from the movie, 1984, complete with Big Brother pontificating to the masses on a huge TV screen. The woman runs up and tosses a hammer into the screen, smashing conformity and introducing the Mac.

Fast forward to about 1997 or so, and I clearly recall writing a brief item on corporate quarterly reports for a business publication. In the last quarter of that year -- a short and apparently very painful three months -- Apple lost $700 million. I couldn't even conceive of it and suspected we wouldn't be hearing much from Apple anymore. The corporate market was using the Windows platform -- the concept of the user-friendly interface borrowed from Apple -- and Macs were rapidly becoming a niche product for graphic artists. The Mac remains the preferred system in the graphic arts. Macs have more power, really, to move big color files around and manipulate images.

So Jobs returns to the company and comes up with the iPod, the iPad, and the iPhone. And Bill Gates jokes about, "Gee, I wish I'd thought of that."

It's just amazing to me -- all of it is. I'm older than Steve Jobs, so he was born, grew up, prospered, and passed away all within my lifetime. And he changed the world.

And all without a government subsidy.

The world needs more like him. And we need an America ("the last, best hope of earth") where he or she will be free to dream and to turn the dreams, the what-ifs, the wouldn't-that-be-cools into something useful, beautiful, and profitable -- for everyone.

Save the Republic.

Hey, Durbin, banking ain't free

2011-10-04T17:37:00.001-05:00

The so-called "Durbin Fee," because it was the result of legislation introduced and promoted by U.S. Senator Dickhead Durbin (d-for-dummy, IL), has caused Bank of America to charge $5.00 per month for customers who use their debit cards.

Apparently Durbin believed the banks should not make any money by extending the debit card service. However, the banks have to pay third-party businesses to make debit cards functional. So if the banks have to pay for the service and not profit from it, the cost of it goes to the consumer.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, got it?

Durbin and the rest of the socialists (including the more articulate Wall Street Squatters) seem to have this vision of "capitalists" as people who have this closet full of gold bullion or something. And they're hogging it.

Therefore, the feds -- or any "needy person" really -- morally should be able to tap into that huge supply of capital. Or businesses should hire excess workers because "that's the right thing to do."

That's just not the way it works.

Profits -- apparently that huge, unlimited storehouse of gold -- in real life is revenues minus expenses. It's usually calculated as a percentage, and is known as a "profit margin."

Like I made sales of $100.00. My expenses were $90.00. I made a profit of $10.00. That's a 10% profit margin -- which is wa-a-a-a-a-y higher than what most businesses make. And investors, "venture capitalists," like to see a 20% profit margin before they'll sink their money into it. During the dot-com bubbble, a projected 20% profit margin looked possible and sometimes it was. But in most cases, a 20% profit margin is an "in your dreams" kind of thing. Most of the dot-coms failed, you know. At best, they were experimental.

So businesses watch their margins. If sales drop, you have to cut expenses to sustain those margins. You don't want to raise the prices on your products, because that inevitably will slow sales even more. First move is to cut expenses -- either by improving efficiencies, or last-resort, laying off employees. But you don't want to lay off employees because they know your business. Newbies cost a lot of money and usually aren't productive for their first few months or even longer.

In addition, in states like Illinois, employers have to pay fees to cover at least a part of the unemployment checks the state hands out. So the business pays for former employees who are no longer contributing to the business's profits. It's a black hole. A last resort. No business wants to do that.

So there's no warehouse full of unused cash -- there's basically only margins, which are quite fluid and change every day with sales and expense levels.

If you use the law to force businesses to cut their profits, the business loses investors. When they lose investors, they fold. This is particularly true of corporations. No profits or dividends, shareholders sell off their stock, walk away, the corporation folds, or looks around for another business to buy it out.

And no one, not even the feds, can afford to hire people as an act of charity. Employees cost money. A business's profit margins have to be able to support another employee. Or, market demand for your product has to be so hot you need more people to boost production and/or expand sales. Sales cost a lot of money. Support for sales is often the largest expense on the balance sheet. And when you add thousands of dollars onto the cost of an employee -- like through Obamacare -- you're making it much harder for businesses to hire new people.

See how easy that is, Dickie? See how stupid and destructive your blockhead legislation is? See why you're to blame for all the ticked off Bank of America customers?

See, Dickhead, because you don't understand anything about capitalism, you're destroying the whole very delicately balanced free enterprise system. It's like you just threw a rock through the front window. And you're so damn ignorant, you don't even understand that. Go ahead, go squat on Wall Street with the people who share your fantasy vision how the economy is divided into "fat cats" and "pathetic starving workers." Go and organize the non-productive deadbeats. See who you can get to pay any more to support them.

Dickhead Durbin would not be in office except for the dem machine that runs Chicago. However, Ram Emanual, as Mayor of Chicago, is just now trying to raise property taxes, public transportation fares, and has threatened to -- HORROR OF HORRORS! -- lay off city workers. My God, he's imperiling is voter base. Ram Emanual has got himself in a situation where he's been confronted with -- Hey, no warehouse full of cash! Not in the city, not in the city's businesses, not in taxpayer pockets. He's got himself too close to Main Street.

Socialism doesn't work. It's not based on reality. Got that? How many times do you have to hear it? Don't take my word for it. Just look around.

As the nation collapses around them, Durbin and like-minded blockheads believe the solution is to go out and make a bunch of "I am blameless" speeches. Like, "Yeah, I'm an ignorant blockhead, but you just can't help but love me, right? After all, my heart's in the 'right' place."

And you know what, that's not working, either. Not when it takes food off the table.

Save the Republic.

Class warfare in action?

2011-10-03T20:33:00.000-05:00

Well, the Wall Street Squatters are still squatting, and apparently 700 or so of them or were arrested over the weekend for sitting down on a bridge in Manhattan and blocking traffic for hours.

One reporter was on the scene, and was asked, "How is it down there?" He answered, "Actually kind of smelly."

Tea Party members dressed up like Ben Franklin and George Washington, apparently people they admire. The Wall Street Squatters dress up like vampires and punk rockers. Is this who they admire?

No one seems to understand what the Wall Street Squatters want, or what their message is. Of several who were interviewed briefly, maybe three out of five parroted an anti-capitalist slogan. Another guy said he was unemployed and decided just to see what was going on. Another guy apparently came for the free accupuncture one of the squatters offered.

What struck me is their specific complaints: no jobs, the economy in the crapper.

You know what? Those are two issues where they agree with the Tea Party.

The difference is that the Wall Street Squatters blame this mess on the financial industry, which has been bought out and hog-tied by the feds.

The Tea Party blames the feds.

So, trying on my Conspiracy Hat -- is this why the Comrade is pursuing all these bullshit economic policies that are designed deliberately to wreck the US economy? So these strange and somehow unkempt and bizarre people will rise up and make the revolution?

Is it working?

How do the Wall Street Squatters get time for all this? Some of them have been camped out on lawn chairs out there for more than a week. They probably do little trips home to check their mail for their Social Security, SSI, unemployment, and Workers' comp payments. I mean, really, who else has the time?

And who do they think are paying their bills?

That would be the White House?

And where does the White House get its money?

Doesn't seem to be getting much anymore -- after hitting free enterprise a few good knocks with the Obamacare and Dudd-Fudd wrecking balls.

But somehow, a goth with pink hair and white face make-up is kind of hard to take seriously as someone prepared to topple the Republic, know what I mean?

Hey, Comrade and Van Jones, this rabble ain't going to accomplish your goals. That was done in the 60s and 70s and it didn't work then. These are not people capable of much but lip service and squatting. They aren't "activists" in the true sense of the word. They aren't "active." They really aren't much like the sans-culottes of the French Revolution, and though a few seemed proud of being arrested for the bridge thing, somehow I don't think they'd stand strong against something like tear gas, let alone bullets.

Nice try, but this is going nowhere.

Save the Republic.

Dems say "We don't need no stinkin' voters"

2011-09-29T07:32:00.000-05:00

A couple of democrats have made some interesting statements over the last couple days or so. It seems they're getting to really dislike democracy in general, that is, letting other people beside themselves engage in the process of government decision-making.

Let's start with the governess of North Carolina, Beverly Perdue. Believe it was yesterday she was giving a speech somewhere and suggested that the US suspend the next congressional election for a couple of years so that congress could get something done without the pressure of having to answer to voters -- or rather run for re-election. She added she thought this is a discussion the nation should have.

And last week apparently Perer Orszag, former Director of the Congresssional Budget Office, appointed by the Comrade, now shuffling papers at CitiBank or some other failed-and-bailed financial institution, noted that he believes the USA would be better off if we demoted congress to the status of historical artifact and just let federal bureaucrats make all the decisions.

Since removing her foot from her mouth, Governess Perdue has apparently spent all of her time explaining that she was only joking.

Yeah. We get it. Ha. Ha. But don't mess with my democracy, blockhead, know what I mean?

Orszag seems to be just purely an idiot. Or a power-mad sociopath. Take your pick. His remarks were well thought out and may have even been written down. So he's a fascist on purpose. Or you might even say, on a mission.

And both of these blockheads are democrats.

Yeah, running the USA is lots of fun when you have the support of both houses and the White House and can just ignore the population, isn't it? Whoopee! Hey, let's declare a whopping big tax increase!!

Hey! Get the neighbors out here... Want the feds to dig you a swimming pool, Jake? I can get you the money! Hell, I can get you a high-toned, certified union crew out here to get that taken care of while we still got the warm weather! Aren't you glad you voted for me? Aren't you going to vote for me again? Whoa, but heck, we give up on that silly democracy thing... so I guess I'll just hold this office for the rest of my natcherl life! Screw the voters! They got nothin to say about it anymore!

And while we're at it, why not compel every US citizen to buy an electric car? I mean, hey, it's "good for them." They're just too stoopid too figure that out on their own.

So it may be that Peter Orszag was the guy who claimed socialized medicine would "save money." The way he calculated that was to leave the pay for doctors and other health care workers out of the legislation. Hey, the CBO doesn't write the bills. We just add up the numbers they give us.

While we're at it, I think every citizen should have their own private wind turbine. Wouldn't you like that? Snap! It's yours!! Now you can spend the rest of your life trying to get it to work... in your spare time, when you're not trying to figure out how to pay for it.

And we're taking away your guns. Snap! Just sign my little name on the dotted line here. Done! Now only criminals will be armed! Now you'll be safe and sound for sure, according to my fantasy version of The Way Life Should Be.

Here, Pazzo, here's $7 billion for your brother-in-law, who's been paving the desert with solar panels. Good job! Hey! Just keep those taxpayers dollars going to to your friends and family! I'm sure you've still got people on the take in Maryland. Don't forget them! We may need them to harass a few corporate CEOs. The voters, American citizens, don't need to know what we're doing! Uselss little peons, anyway. We can squash them like bugs! With one stroke of the pen!

And while we're at it, let's just draw up an executive order to do away with that troublesome Bill of Rights thing. Who needs that? Certainly no one inside the Beltway. All this crap about personal liberty and all -- it just gets in the way. So ineffecient and old fashioned, has no place in a computerized world. I mean why let the Little People piddle around trying to decide where to send their kids to school and what they should make for dinner when we in the federal government already have all the answers?

All this individuality crap is just such a bother...

Is it just me, or does it seem like these blockheads are incapable of learning? I mean, they really have nothing inside their heads but clay. Or maybe they're simply totally and completely ignorant of any human history whatsoever. I suppose they think we fought on the wrong side in WWII. 'Course, WWII, that was when? Didn't that have something to do with York and Lancaster? Or was that Joan of Arc?

Things are so simple when you don't have a brain. And got to say it: Ignorance is Bliss.

Any wonder why the nation's so screwed up with morons like this running things?

Save the Republic.

When Saul Alinski guides your presidential campaign....

2011-09-25T18:42:00.000-05:00

Have you ever been curious what it would look like if a community organizer ran for president of the USA? Let's take a look at the Comrade's campaign thus far, no doubt inspired by Rules for Radicals:

Develop a forthrightly marxist economic policy and back it up with class-warfare slogans like "Tax the Rich." Preach that to a population who wants to be rich and is getting sick of seeing the federal government pour its hard-earned tax dollars down the black hole of "green" technology that no one wants.
Get a bunch of women with flabby upper arms in tanks tops -- to show off their tattoos -- to picket the NYSE. They'll need signs, too. Make sure they cuss at the cops, too. You want to get them on TV, hopefully as the cops stack their limp carcasses in a paddy wagon.
Instruct your brain-dead, Kool-Aid drinking Senate Majority leader to table any useful and bipartisan proposals that come from a Republican-dominated House, just because it's a Republican-dominated House. Never mind WHY it's a Republican-dominated House.
Have your communications guy, David Fluff, appear on a national political TV show, like Fox Sunday, with a hair cut like Adolf Hitler. Or no. Scratch that. Probably not a good move.
Talk endlessly about supporting teachers, construction workers, and veterans -- all union workers or people on the public payroll/dole, right? That's supposed to inspire support from middle class self-employed/unemployed and business owners?
Ignore all foreign policy issues and questions. Just get on Air Force One and fly to the Midwest. Transfer to the million-dollar, Canadian-made campaign bus for some kind of whistle-stop tour.
After you've berated rich "fat cats" for your whole career, insult them further by asking them to attend your $35,000-per-plate fundraiser. Or maybe they'll be in for a big tax audit?
Get an ugly fat film-maker to threaten the middle class with turning loose a bunch of unemployed, illegal alien laborers on them. Or someone. This fantasy "downtrodden class" we hear so much about. Moore is just an idiot. I suspect he could never get a date in high school and still blames General Motors. Who knows, maybe that Chevy convertible he could never afford might have helped shape a more positive attitude for him.
Wave your arms around a lot and shout. If you shout something, that means it's important. The thing is, you've got to get people excited enough to... do... well, something. It doesn't have to be useful and certainly not reasonable or productive. You just have to get re-elected. Never mind why. Or how. Or over whose dead bodies. Got break eggs to make omelets, right?

Sound like a plan? Sounds like the Comrade's plan.

Does any of this serve the country? Does it serve anyone? Is this "stirring the base?" If so, what the hell kind of "base" does the Comrade have? Kinda like those loonies who dress up in ski masks and black Spandex, like Saddam Hussein's Mujahaddin, and show up at the international economic conferences to break windows and set fires.

Is this what the Comrade wants for America? Better question: Is this what you want for America?

Save the Republic.

The Great Debate?

2011-09-25T17:02:00.000-05:00

Watched the Republican debates in Florida the other night. Very intersting, but there's so many candidates, nobody gets enough time.

Just my take:

Romney's too slick by half; Perry's too inarticulate and still in the governor mindset, an advocate for Texas. Not a bad thing, just not presidential.

And I'd like to add, a long time ago I did a story on how to assimilate foreign-born workers into the US workplace. Do you learn their language or teach them English? Do you provide them opportunites for advancement or just exploit them? Pretty crass way to phrase it, but there it is.

I talked to a man who was an exec at Texs Instruments at the time. Ya see, Texas has a long, long border with Mexico and its foreign-born, notably Mexican-born, population was growing faster than its population of US citizens. This guy from Texas Instruments made an excellent point.

He said the way to get immigrants (of any kind, actually) into the American mainstream was to "give them a stake in it." Therefore, I can't disagree with Perry and Texas' policy of letting the kids of even illegal immigrants attend state-run colleges and universities at the rate given to residents. More than likely, those kids were born here even if their parents were illegal. So what do you do with them IN THE REAL WORLD? That's the question. I mean, this isn't Utopia after all, and Texas has lived with this issue longer than most.

The kids are here. They're going to stay here. You can't deport them. So are you going to force them into poverty, give them a case for hating the US? Herd them into some ghetto? That's kind of like what happened to the Palestinians who deported themselves out of Israel. They squatted in hovels and nurtured their grievances. Their unhappy situation was all Israel's fault, they whined. They make really good cannon fodder for people like Yassir Arafat and Osama bn Ladn. And in the Middle East, this wasn't the Israeli policy, but the Palestinian policy.

So, anyway, no. You don't disenfranchise the children of even illegal immigrants, but allow them a stake in America. It's not a free ride. They still have to pay for school, just at the rate given to Texas residents, which apparently they are. They still have to get themselves a job and support themselves. And once they own a "piece of the rock," they usually become productive and respectable citizens.

But police the borders, and fix that law about automatic citzenship if you're born in the USA. That was written to ensure the citizenship of newly-freed slaves. In Texas, it's not the fault of the kids that their parents jumped the fence. And it's largely a state issue, isn't it, at state-run universities?

And you know what? Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Sorry about that. I'm pretty much stuck with it, too, or will be soon, but that doesn't change the fact that I have been forced to pay for it all of my life, and that it no longer works and was bound to run out of steam someday. I understand Romney being afraid to get too close to that "third rail," especially in Florida, but I think we need to do something about it, like completely restructure it. I was in favor of privatizing Social Security 20 years ago and still am, though I'm too old now to benefit from it.

I thought Rick Santorum was awful. Harping and desperate. Yeah, we know you're one of the most conservative people on earth.

Herman Cain did win. He came off as reasonable, responsible, friendly, and humble, though I'm not so sure I agree with his "9-9-9" solution for a few reasons I won't go into here, except to say that it's too likely to be abused the next time we get people like the Comrade, Pelosi and Reid in positions of authority. No matter what kind of legislative fence you build around it, the slimy socialists will find a way around it.

Huntsman sounded curiously like a very slickly schooled Ron Paul. Gary Johnson, a Libertarian like Ron Paul, also sounded like Ron Paul, not surprisingly. I must say, the Libertarians do have their own brand of Kool-Aid. Gary Johnson had the best line of the night, saying his neighbor's two dogs had produced more "shovel-ready jobs" than the Comrade's administration.

That leaves Newt Gingrich, who seemed so laid back it was bizarre. But apparently he's coming out with his own economic policy this week, so he was holding his fire, I guess. He and Herman Cain were picked most often as a preferred v.p. candidate on the ticket. I'd love Gingrich as V.P., if in that position he was allowed considerable power to 1.) deal with congress; 2.) develop policy; 3.) head up the program to slice & dice the federal machine. But in that case, what would the president do?

Michelle Bachman came off sounding like a tax accountant. I understand her wanting to back up all her statements by quoting their sources -- she's been criticized for saying unpardonable things like "John Wayne grew up in Winterset, Iowa" -- but she sounded kinda like a robot and came in last in the Florida Straw Poll.

So that's about it. I'd still prefer any of these people over the Comrade.

Save the Republic.

Loose lips...

2011-09-20T01:49:00.000-05:00

Watched Hannity on TV tonight for a while. He had a couple women on, debating the debacle over the feds giving Solyndra a half-billion dollars for... not much. The company has gone belly up and taken all those taxpayer dollars with it.

Such is the "stimulus." And Comrade Butthead wants a second one.

Anyway, the dems have taken up defending the indefensible. Crusaders in not a lost cause, but a worthless and destructive cause.

To wit, this silly bitch on Hannity tonight first said, "The loan to Solyndra was approved under the Bush Administration."
* No, it wasn't. As Hannity pointed out, the Bush folks looked at Solyndra and passed on investing in it. They thought it would fail.

The silly bitch then said something like, "It's the job of the federal government to invest in new technologies. That's what it's supposed to do."
* Oh yeah? Where in the US Constitution does it say that? And what kind of subsidies did, oh, Thomas Edison, for example, or Henry Ford get to nurture and baby their new technologies? Maybe that's why they made them work -- had to, or just a big goose egg on the balance sheet. They had to offer a worthwhile product and also develop a market for it. No market, no sales. Hey, Solyndra and you buttheads passing out the federal dollars -- take note. No market, no sales. Got that? Capitalism 101, blockheads. You must have been out picketing bankers that day and missed that class.

The silly bitch then said, "Red China invested billions in its solar industry..." And Hannity cut her off for time.
* But was this silly bitch honestly and truly suggesting that Red China should serve as an example to the USA? She must have learned economics from Paul Krugman.

These people are losing it. I mean, losing the capitalism vs. socialism argument big time, and also losing their grip on reality. 'Course, they probably started in LaLaLand if they embraced socialism in the first place. Or an Ivy League college on the East Coast.

We all understand the Comrade thinks Red China is a positive beacon (for something or other, his favorite brand of totalitarianism), but now his zombie-like disciples are giving away the whole show.

And I think I noted a few blogs back about those robots they're developing in China -- because of the extraordinarly high suicide rate among China's work force. Yeah, slave labor is the answer, isn't it? The best way to "take care" of the population is to get them all to kill themselves.

You really want to be like Red China, silly bitch, and all the rest of the Kool-Aid drinkers? If so, you deserve it. Go ahead, hop on a plane. Red China needs workers.

Oh, and the congressman who heads up the Congressional Black Caucus has announced that the caucus would be marching on the White House if it was, let's say, Clinton, instead of a black guy promulgating all these stupid, job-killing, freedom-anihilating policies. However, since the Comrade is half black, the caucus remains somewhat in his corner.

And the Tea Party is called racist?

Save the Republic.

Dems, like lemmings, heading over the cliff

2011-09-19T17:17:00.000-05:00

Well, let's see which socialist dem shot himself in the foot today. Oh, it was the Comrade.

I didn't hear his speech, if he gave a speech. I know he did in some way unveil his "plan" to pay for all the additional spending he wants to do. No secret. That has been leaked for at least a week now.

Apparently the Comrade's suggestion will be called the "Buffet Tax." Jimmy Buffet? "But I know, it's my own damn fault." No, that can't be it.

More like Warren Buffet. The millionnaire who apparently wants to be sure that no one else in the USA ever makes the kind of money he's made. Or who's been rich for so long, he forgot how he made his money.

You know, Warren, if you think you don't pay enough in taxes, you can just write the feds a check. Two more things -- Warren Buffet has left his estate to the Bill Gates Foundation -- not the feds -- and his company, Berkley Hathaway, owes the feds about $1 billion in back taxes and it's fighting the action in court.

So much for the typical hypocrisy associated with centralized-state lovers. That is, lots and lots of rules should be made and taxes levied on the little money-grubbing peons, but those rules should never apply to the anointed ones who make the rules. They're god-like and float somewhere in a kind of divine stratosphere about 50,000 feet above the earth, no?

On the plus side, no one but Warren Buffet appears to be taking the Comrade or his proposal very seriously. Everyone knows it's going to be killed in congress -- even a dem-controlled congress isn't suicidal enough to push this crap through. They had the chance when Pazzo Pelosi was Speaker and it didn't pass then.

The Comrade counts on seeing the bill fail, then he'll blame Republicans for a ruined economy.

And he blames -- over and over and over again -- politicians who only want to be re-elected and are willing to sacrifice the nation for there own ambition.

He's the chief person who's doing that. We all know it. We all know this is just a political ploy, a rather desperate -- and rather stupid -- last-ditch effort to not accept any blame for having a more destructive impact on the USA than the Islamo-terrorists.

And somewhat related to the death wish and to Islamo-terrorists, have you noticed how the more fanatic socialists are getting increasingly more self-destructive? Look at Paul Krugman. After his diatribe against the USA on 9/11, he no doubt will have to hire body guards if he intends to go outside in New York City. I suspect he doesn't go out much anyway. If he was truly engaged with reality, he couldn't possibly believe the crap he believes in.

I suppose they're all depressed. Not because they'll lose the 2012 election, but because their stupid policies actually have been implemented and have not only failed, but made things much, much worse.

Must say, keep it up folks! I'll be the one in the red dress, dancing an Irish jig, at your funerals.

Save the Republic.

I love New York, or Howard Beach anyway

2011-09-14T00:50:00.000-05:00

Well, interesting. Remember Anthony Weiner, the weiner? A congressman from Howard Beach, NY, fond of displaying his private parts on Twitter? He resigned. Finally.

So today there was a special election to fill his seat in the US House.

Interesting district. The seat was once held by Geraldine Ferraro (who ran for US vice president with Mondale in 1984 and lost) and also by Chucklehead Schumer, who's now a US Senator from New York. Then came the weiner.

Anyway, it's a district that includes many conservative Jews, and it also has voted democrat consistently for nearly a century. The seat in the House has been held by a democrat since 1923 or thereabouts.

So guess who won this election?

Bob Turner, Republican. And from news reports, he claimed to be a Tea Party supporter. At least that's what his opponents said. 'Course, maybe they'll want to take that back now, if only so that they can continue to pretend that the Tea Party represents unpopular and "extremist" views.

From the New York Times:

...Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said the district’s large concentration of Orthodox Jews made it unusual and meant the race had few national ramifications.

“In this district, there is a large number of people who went to the polls tonight who didn’t support the president to begin with and don’t support Democrats — and it’s nothing more than that,” she said in a telephone interview.

Obviously Wasserman Schultz is wearing her her butt for a hat, as usual, and is either in shock or very deep, psychotic denial. That is, delusional. The Comrade won the district with 56% of the vote in 2008. I'd say he carried it handily back then. Like all the democrats who have run in that district for almost 100 years past.

But no more.

Read 'em and weep, White House marxists. We don't like you and we're not going to play your game anymore. We're just plain sick of your crap. Kinda like what Ronald Reagan said once. He had been a democrat for many years, but then declared himself a Republican. He said, "I didn't move away from the party; the party moved away from me."

Yeah, it's like that.

Save the Republic.

The ugly face of progressives

2011-09-13T15:00:00.000-05:00

Just a note, because this bastard doesn't deserve anything more, but I understand the New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman, has come out claiming that the ceremonies marking the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks were "disgraceful."

See, Krugman claims that the US caused the problem. Therefore, mourning the deaths of the 3,000 individuals, including 343 firefighters and police officers, who died in the World Trade Center, and regarding them as "heroes" is all a fraud.

The USA deserved it, you see.

Krugman is one of the most disgusting turds allowed space in an American newspaper. Why not haul your sorry ass to Cuba, butthead? I'm sure Castro would love to hear your drivel. Can't think of anyone else who might, at least anyone who values human life.

Krugman does have a Nobel Prize, but then so does the Comrade. I think those Nobel Prizes are more the mark of Cain anymore than a sign of achievement. I suppose it says on the certificate, "In recognition of the blockheaded stupidity of an extraordinarly useful idiot."

Krugman's an asshole. He still insists that stimulus works; that it hasn't worked so far because it wasn't "big enough." Hey, why not toss your Nobel Prize funds into the federal pot, moron? Maybe that will help.

Why is this person allowed a public forum? Does he have anything enlightening to say? I don't think so. Is he part of the solution or a source of the problem?

The New York Times has become nothing more than a megaphone for the far left. They kept calling me trying to get to buy a subscription. I told them I put on MSNBC and get that marxist viewpoint any time without paying extra for it. And guess what, the telemarketer had a whole bunch of arguments all laid out to try to overcome exactly those objections. I suspect they've heard it before.

The NYT and Krugman can -- and certainly will -- burn in hell. Even before their earthly demise. Life in a free country must be a dreadful burden for them.

Save the Republic.

US federal government: a greedy fat cat?

2011-09-13T14:18:00.001-05:00

The Comrade has proposed a second stimulus. About $450 billion for teachers and construction workers, in other words, for the unions that support him.

And we're supposed to pay for this in increased taxes? Which will eventually end up in his campaign fund?

I don't think so.

On the plus side, I contacted Speaker of the House John Boehner's office, and they assure me the Republicans in the House won't support anything that will only make the economy worse.

But you got to look at the Comrade's policies from a marxist perspective. That's the only way they make sense.

See, one major -- actually key -- difference between socialism and capitalism is that in a socialist system, the central government controls all of a nation's assets, or as much as the government can get its hands on through legislation and regulation. Like seizing control of the banks via TARP and also the Fudd-Dudd legislation that lays 2,500 pages of new regulation on all kinds of financial institutions. So the feds grab control of the finance industry -- those huge pools of capital and sources of lending that make the economy work and grow.

Even if the feds don't outright own the banks and credit companies, they control them. They mandate those companies' policies, tell them who they can hire, what they can charge, what they can lend to whom. What to print on the monthly statements, for pete's sake.

Then the feds seize and control and "reorganize" the auto industry, energy, education, health care.

Starting to sound familiar? You know, Monkey-face Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's marxist dictator, laughed and applauded in 2009, noting that the Comrade wasn't in office a month before he sezied control of the US auto industry. Monkey-face was delighted.

The only pools of capital left that remain beyond the direct control of Washington DC are privately owned funds in the hands of corporations and private individuals. So the Comrade's going after them now -- primarily through taxation, but also by levying 25,000 pages of regulations designed to cripple them and compel them to spend tons of money on accountants, lawyers, and fines to the feds. If the federal government doesn't outright own them, they still try to run them, dictate their policies and control their operations through regulation and mandated reporting. Or the feds shut these companies down.

The Comrade's very fond of speaking with an arrogant disdain about "fat cats" and "greedy" capitalists. But exactly who is it eating up the nation's resources? Not private citizens or corporations, but the federal government. And if the feds were doing a good job, the economy would reflect that immediately in economic growth and a general prosperity.

That hasn't happend. Just the opposite. No growth, higher unemployment. A very high level of uncertainty for business that prevents them from making significant investments in... anything. I don't blame them. It could all be seized by the feds tomorrow -- like the Gibson Guitar Company. Now there's a danger to society.

Being a marxist socialist, the Comrade has this obsessive compulsion to seize the assets and resources of any and every private citizen and organization and to bring it under direct control of a monstrous (and extremely wasteful and incompetent) federal government.

This is socialism -- by any other name, this is socialism.

Resist. You can also drop John Boehner a note, or your own Rep or Senator, if they happen to be anti-socialist. Unfortunately, it seems few democrats still fall into the anti-socialist category anymore. And for that reason, looks like they're all going to lose big time in 2012. We can only hope.

Save the Republic.

9/11 + 10

2011-09-11T04:08:00.000-05:00

It's only a couple hours after midnight and I've already seen numerous shows about 9/11/01, the day the USA was attacked by a bunch of slobbering rabid maniacs who are much better off dead.

Apparently 9/11 has been so thoroughly covered over the last decade, and perhaps some of the shock and numbness has worn off, but this year the media is carrying some very interesting stories about the actual people who died in the WTC, the Pentagon, and Flight 93, instead of just reporting the details of what happened.

A quote: "We shall never stop war, whatever machinery we may devise, until we have learned to think always, with a desperate urgency and an utter self-identification, of single human beings."

That's from Victor Gollancz, who was a British pubisher and rather left-leaning.

Something I learned while writing a novel about the US Civil War, is that it's not enough to believe you are right about something, you also have to take into account the consequences of your actions as you promote your views. This character in my novel was all anti-slavery and totally fired up about the Civil War, and without once backing off that view, was compelled to face the cost of that view in terms of horribly mangled soldiers and the possibility of losing the USA all together.

Some things are worth fighting and dying for, if that's their price. Personally, I'd rather be dead than live as a slave -- to a plantation boss or a government that has overstepped its bounds and is ruining my personal liberty, forcing me to work 14 hours a day to pay taxes or have my old and obsolete property confiscated. And I totally despise those who want to push me into a situation where I'm forced to defend myself. Every goddamn day. Every goddamn day.

We all have the right to be wrong, but we don't have the right to impose our views on others, make them pay for our "morality," or whatever, whether that "morality" is based on the Koran or on Karl Marx and Das Kapital.

You have to always consider that although whatever you believe in is documented and clearly demonstrable, somebody else might happily accept a lot of irratioinal hooey and will fight you if you try to make them give it up. I figure people can believe whatever they want, as long as they don't expect me to pay for it -- or to join them in supporting it. We are not "all in this together." We live in separate skins.

You know, the Founding Fathers taught "toleration" as strenuously as they promoted individual liberty. Like Thomas Jefferson, who would tolerate almost anything that "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." I think he'd be horrified at the notion of "political correctness."

But getting back to 9/11, if I've left it... We forget that the families at home waited for days and even longer in many cases to find out whether or not their spouse, parent, sibling, friend was dead or alive. Heard stories over the last couple days from NY firefighters who were the lone survivors of their squads. The guilt must be overwhelming.

What amazes me is that in such a shocking (and I mean like medical shock) situation, so many people stopped to help other people, looked around for others to help, went back into the buildings to help others. And some of them perished. Private citizens, too, not only those trained for rescue operations.

I don't believe "selflessness" is a good thing. You can't help others unless you are in a better situation than they are. But this all happened on Wall Street, you know? Two giant towers housing one of the planet's most intense concentrations of "greed" and "fat cats." That's what made them targets, isn't it? Living the American Dream? Freedom and its result, prosperity.

And finding out more about exactly who these people were, as individuals, just emphasizes the tragedy of that day.

Save the Republic.

"Pass this bill." Then figure out who pays for it later? Is that it?

2011-09-08T22:31:00.000-05:00

I actually listened to the Comrade's speech tonight. He was working a little too hard to sound as though he's convinced of the drivel running out of his mouth. All he needed was a letter sweater and pompoms. Looks like he's been taking acting lessons from Howard Dean.

What I found especially interesting was his promise -- spoken with delight and wonder -- "And it's all paid for!"

What? Was he speaking as a visitor from 3010? Or what? Like, "Your great-great-great-grandchildren will just about have this paid off!" Miracle of miracles.

He has no new ideas. Just the same old marxist crap. And the word he dare not speak aloud: "stimulus." Like we don't recognize it when we see it, huh?

He did begin by saying that most Americans don't care about politics. Yeah. I think he's counting on that -- that the majority of the American public is more ignorant than he is.

Let's see if that works for him this time.

One thing I thought was cool. The Comrade said something like, "A lot of people believe that the government has to cut taxes, cut regulations for the economy to grow...." That got a long ovation, interrupting him before it finished it off with something like, "But no. I've got to control every aspect of your life or it's not truly marxist."

He didn't seem happy with the extremely selective applause. That was my favorite part.

On the whole, the speech was a load of crap, but I didn't expect much else.

Save the Republic.

How do unions benefit?

2011-09-08T15:23:00.000-05:00

So the Comrade's supposed big speech is scheduled for tonight. Yawn. I don't expect any surprises and apparently no one else does either, not even the dems. On top of that, everyone knows the speech is just a big political game to try to dump the blame for this economy on Congress.

Are there any voters out there who aren't aware of this? I mean, who does the Comrade think he's fooling?

Well, maybe the unions? Are union members that stupid? Or is it just their leaders? Power-mad, greedy thugs?

I've said before, I've been in two unions due to "closed shop" laws in Illinois. That is, if you don't join the union, you don't work. I haven't really said which unions they were. I'll say it now, it was SEIU before the communists took over and then later, the Teamsters.

I didn't quite see any advantages from membership in either one. The Teamsters was the worst though. Very high dues withheld from our checks, and our steward was intimidated by the "guys downtown" and wouldn't even ask them any questions. Apart from taking our money every month. the Teamsters had absolutely no impact whatsoever on that job, conditions, days off or anything. But our management bosses were scared poopless of them, too.

So I'm just thinking, what are union members getting out of the Comrade's regime? Are they working? Maybe for six months, 12 months -- for as long as the first stimulus lasted. But now even the US Post Office -- employing the largest aggregate union in the country apart from public school teachers -- even the Post Office is facing serious cut-backs. There's even talks of shutting it down all together.

When I was in the SEIU, leadership tried to donate a whole bunch of money to the dem candidate running for president that year -- and he had promised a "guaranteed income" for everyone. That is, every American would be guaranteed X-amount of income if they worked or not, or whatever their situation might be. The SEIU leadership wanted to support this guy's campaign. But there was such a rage about that... "You mean I gotta work my ass off 40 hours a week plus any overtime I can get and these lazy assholes just sit back and collect?" I think in the end, the SEIU didn't donate any money to anyone that year. As I said, it was before the communists took it over.

During the Reagan presidency, I knew several -- actually dozens -- of union members who became very staunch Republicans. Just like the "solid South," which heretofore had been solidly democrat in protest of Lincoln and abolition.

So union leadership doesn't always reflect the values and beliefs of the people they represent. I'm sure not every SEIU member is a marxist, as that organization's leadership is.

And the Teamsters? Having heard snippets of Jimmy Hoffa Jr's tirade against the Tea Party, I'd guess Hoffa is about as brutal, thuggish and corrupt as his old man. And he'll probably end up buried under a stadium in the Meadowlands, too. Or whatever. Wonder how many Teamsters are also Tea Party? Something to think about, Junior.

Much more recently, as a journalist, I watched the demise of an industry partially due to union pressures. The industry was automating. The union represented only maybe a quarter of the people employed in businesses nationwide, and then usually only in the larger businesses. As technologies changed and the industry shrunk just due to those developments (consumers could do their own work, rather than go to one of these businesses to have it done), the unions started screaming and hollering, demanding better pay, blah-blah-blah. The industry union got so small that it's now joined itself to either the Teamsters of the AFL. I forget which.

One company was the largest in this industry in the world. The union began ranting and raving, lying and trying to generate all kinds of bad publicity, lobbying for things Card-Check (that's the first time I ever heard of it, in the 1990s), and also trying to organize its union internationally. The union apparently believed this huge, huge company was the place to start. Many of its facilities were already organized and the company had always got along pretty well with its unions. Until the harrassment started.

So this biggest company in the world started selling off and shutting down its plants all over the world. It took its remaining capital and restructured itself into a succesful business in a different industry. And there's about 30,000 one-time employees who don't work for them anymore. The unions were just too much trouble to deal with. So the corporation cut and run while it still had something left to start over somewhere else.

Anyways, now I'm rambling. But I just hope the union membership takes a step back and thinks about all this before they get on the bus, drink the Kool-Aid, and start beating up bankers or Tea Party members or whatever Junior and Trumpka wants them to do. The membership are Americans, too, after all. Once a free and proud people. Are they still?

Save the Republic.

Face it, "stimulus" doesn't work -- no free lunch

2011-09-06T13:17:00.000-05:00

Well, the Comrade is apparently totally out of ideas.

What is it? Almost three years ago now, I wrote in this blog that if the $787 BILLION (that's almost a TRILLION) followed by an $410 BILLION Omnibus bill (that makes it MORE THAN A TRILLION) went through, there would be jobs for a short while -- as long as the money lasted -- and then we'd be stuck with nothing but debt. No recovery.

The Comrade and idiots like Paul Krugman said, No, the stimulus is going to resuscitate the economy and will bring a new day of economic paradise.

What actually happened here?

As the Comrade gears up for his big speech Thursday night, having secured the permission of congress to use congress as a classy background and a prop, word leaks about what he's going to propose. Not surprisingly, he's going to propose another stimulus.

God save us all from this ignoramus. Clearly, anyone who wants another stimulus is trying their damedest to destroy the nation. How much evidence do you need? Look at what the last stimulus did.

Are you better off now than you were three years ago?

Told a story once how under Nixon's stupid policies of price freezes, when the freeze came off, the price of bacon went from 89 cents a pound to $1.89. Last time I was at the store looking at bacon, it was $6.99 a pound.

Is that a good thing? Can anyone but a government employee survive with this shit? It's called "quantitative easing." Otherwise known as "fire up the printing presses and create a bunch of currency that's worth absolutely nothing." Like Germany between the wars.

How many times does the human race have to conduct these kinds of failed and destructive policies before it figures out they do more harm than good? Reality won't let us operate that way. All these policies do is consume and trash the resources of the nation and of individuals -- 'cause ultimately we have to pay for it all. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Carter had the double whammy of inflation and unemployment. The Comrade has inflation, unemployment, and a monstrous debt that he created and from which we may never recover.

The Comrade is presenting his proposal as the one and only solution. And he's dead serious, because he's demonstrated he knows nothing about capitalist economics, having been schooled in marxist fantasyland stuff. So more debt and failure being the only solution he offers, a wiser and better educated congress will likely refuse it. We can only hope.

Then the Comrade can campaign, "See, congress is standing in the way again."

Meanwhile Brain-dead Harry Reid (D-for-dumb Nevada), will not allow any serious and useful economic proposals to be heard on the floor of the Senate. So exactly who is blocking progress?

And the Comrade says the Republicans are blocking movement for political reasons. Actually, if Congress passes this bullshit, they'd be acting with such an abandonment of all principle and concern for the USA, they'd come close to equaling the hatred and contempt the Comrade has for this nation.

THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE NOTHING YET THAT ISN'T PURELY AND ENTIRELY POLITICAL. HE'S DEMONSTRATED OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT HE DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT HAPPENS TO THE USA, AS LONG HE BULLIES THROUGH HIS COMMUNIST POLICIES. HE'S SOME KIND OF TOOL, NO DOUBT FOR THAT GREAT HEGELIAN PENDUMLUM HE BELIEVES IN. IT'S QUITE OBVIOUS. HE KNOWS NOTHING ELSE AND IS NOT EQUIPPED TO RECOGNIZE OR DEAL WITH REALITY, EVEN WHEN IT JUMPS UP AND BITES HIM IN THE ASS.

These policies don't work, Comrade. And hopefully, you won't be working for too much longer either.

Save the Republic.

More federal "help"

2011-09-02T15:42:00.000-05:00

Another brief note.

Big storm now hitting the Gulf coast -- Alabama, New Orleans...

Just saw on TV a deteriorating levee on the Gulf Coast. Local officials said the levee's been falling apart for about for a few months now. They put in for a permit to repair it a couple months ago at an estimated cost of $150,000. They still haven't got the permit.

With this current storm eating away at the levee, current estimate for repairs now $2 to $3 million.

Way to go! Isn't government great? It makes the trains run on time -- on some kind of time -- just like Mussolini.

Save the Republic.

The lunatics in charge

2011-09-02T12:21:00.001-05:00

Very briefly....

The US EPA has issued (even more) new rules to cripple the economy. These about smog -- only a problem in certain geographic areas, but the rules will cost something like $80 BILLION to private industry. They will no doubt force the closing or expensive retooling of much industrial capacity and probably will slow down the economy even more.

Speaker of the House John Boehner wrote the Comrade, informing his Hindness of these likely results. The Comrade says he will suspend the new rules, because, as a White House statement claims, the president has always tried to reduce regulations.

Laughed so hard my sides ache. Where have these White House people been for the last couple years? Venezuela on a federal grant-to-education? Soaking up the wit and wisdom of monkey-face Hugo Chavez? The Comrade has never met a debilitating regulation he doesn't like, especially if it's pointed at destroying the USA's energy industry. He promised during his campaign that he would destroy the energy industry and that seems to be one thing he's actually delivering.

Another news flash... apparently the US government is suing a bunch of banks for approving crappy mortgages. Funny.... 10 years ago, the US government was threatening to cut the banks out of the Fed if they DIDN'T approve crappy mortgages. I mean, 10 years ago, the US government was so damn sure it knew so much more about how to run a bank than bankers do. That assumption has proved to be entirely false, but it sure doesn't stop the US government from continuing to labor under its delusions of financial competence. Jeez, is Barney Fudd still in charge? Say it ain't so.

And we can always look to California for a good laugh. California is shutting down 70 state parks to save $22 million dollars. It's also just passed its own version of the Dream Act, agreeing to give the kids of illegal aliens free college educations, at an estimated cost of $80 BILLION.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Save the Republic.

All politics, all the time

2011-08-31T17:09:00.000-05:00

The title is a quote from Reince Priebus (and I thought I had a funny name), who heads up the Republican National Committee.

Ya see, the Republicans have scheduled a candidates' debate on Sept. 7, 8:00 pm. It's been scheduled for months now.

And, curiously enough, the Comrade sent Speaker of the House John Boehner a message requesting to address a joint session of congress on Sept. 7, 8:00 pm. It seems the Comrade's interns slapped together his promised jobs proposal while the Comrade was golfing in Martha's Vineyeard. Now the Comrade wants to blot out the threat of a Republican candidates' debate with his speech -- which I could probably give you right now.

I mentioned the "dog in the manger" phrase a couple blogs back. I'd heard that it originated from some kind of story about a dog getting in Jesus' manger and wanting to hog the limelight. Well, I looked it up, and it seems it comes from Aesop's Fables. About a dog who laid down in a manger, not because he wanted to eat the grain, but because he wanted to prevent the oxen from getting at it. Just out of some psychopathic impulse to wreck everyone else's lives.

Never fails to amaze me how... the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Like the Russian Czars and communist/fascist dictators everywhere, the Comrade apparently just can't even tolerate the idea of someone else suggesting solutions to the nation's problems. I mean that's why Sakharov was baished to some armpit in Siberia in Russia -- because he dared to engage with Solzhenitsyn in some public conversation about how to improve life in the USSR. Solzhenitsyn took refuge for a time in the USA. And neither one of those guys were rapping the existing regime in their talk. The government just didn't want to take any chances on allowng any competition.

The Comrade, cut of the same cloth as other autocrats and diktators, appears to share that common totalitarian attitude.

Dog in the manger, not that he'll have much to say (tax the rich, another useless, wasteful, destructuve stimulus of some kind, tighten controls over what's left of the "free" market, pay off my union thugs, kiss the environmentalists' asses). He just wants to make sure that no one else has a voice.

And that's not how it's suppose to work in the USA, Comrade. But then I wouldn't expect him to understand that. He hasn't so far.

Boehner has offered Sept. 8 as an alternative for the Comrade's speech. Think the Comrade will be willing to reschedule his tee-time? Or is he just making life as totally, stupidly combative and untenable as he possibly can? What do you think? What's he done so far?

Everything's a problem with this guy. Aren't you getting tired of nursing his neuroses and psychoses? I am.

Save the Republic.

Addenda to media criticism (see below)

2011-08-29T09:29:00.000-05:00

Well, the the media's hot news focus of the day has shifted -- only slightly -- from rehashes about tropical storm Irene to "We were right to provide moment-to-moment coverage on the storm and NOTHING ELSE for three days."

I mean, yeah, providing serious warnings about impending danger is a worthwhile and even admirable thing. Standing on an abandoned beach for 14 hours in a chartreuse windbreaker -- and this a day before the storm arrived -- and delivering informative and insightful reports like "Nope, nothin' yet, but the wind seems to be picking up" -- is just a teense over the top. Just a little too eager for a potential misfortune.

And I'd like to separate the actual residents of the East Coast from the news people. The residents behaved very well, very wisely for the most part. Even those young men on the Jersey Shore who planned to stick it out because, "We paid for the house for a week and we're staying a week."

Apparently even people from other countries are up to their eyeballs in tropical storm Irene stories and hoping for even a whiff of anything else leaking out from the East Coast-based US news conglomerates.

Someone suggested to a newscaster that Japan's 7+ quake and tsunami were much worse.

Thanks for ponting that out. Actually, I think Japan should get 21st Century Award for Enduring a Mind-Boggling Disaster Without Whining About It Like a Bunch of Babies.

As a matter of fact, I'm giving Japan that award right now.

By contrast, guess where the US news media ranks on that one?

Save the Republic.

National media opts for local weather reporting

2011-08-29T07:03:00.000-05:00

Now that tropical storm Irene has passed over, scaring the bejeeses out of the media but apparently not spooking too many other people, can we see something on the news besides vistas of empty beaches and that abiding favorite, spots-of-water-on-the-lens?

Face it, "Hurricane" Irene was a bust, despite the way the media hyped it.

On TV, we got three days of the local weather -- for the mid-Atlantic region. How very provincial. I mean really provincial. All the crap weather we've had in the rest of the country, and the local TV news everywhere still found a bunch of other stuff to talk about. Iowa was embroiled in all kinds of politics, for example. Yeah, in this one-horse segment of the nation. Imagine that.

The whole Midwest had what amounted to a land-based hurricane sitting over five or six states, from Kansas to Ohio, Minnesota to Arkansas, for the entire first half of this summer. Winds were, periodically, worse than what Irene was spinning. Unpredictable and very violent storms. The national media did mention the worst of the tornados. I mean, who can resist a scene of absolute devastation, where your kid's swimming pool ends up somehow in a neighboring county? Who cares about the rest? Texas is fried. Have the temperatures there fallen below 100 degrees yet? Who knows? And who cares? This is all the "fly-over zone" after all. The only thing that matters is what happens in NYC or LA. Right?

Pretty sorry that the national media can't seem to penetrate any further into the USA than the coastlines.

Even if Irene wimped out at the end, the media did its best to blow it up into something the dimension of Krakatoa or Mt. Pinatubo. Let's pretend the East Coast is more important than the rest of the country. Or the rest of the world, for that matter.

Legends in their own minds?

"Well, XX% of the population lives on the Eastern seaboard." "This is a 'historic' storm." I'm not quite convinced of that. I'm sure they've seen much worse. I've seen much worse. One visit to Virginia, there was a hurricane off the coast and I never knew it until I heard someone chatting about it at a souvenir shop in Yorktown. In North Carolina, New York, and New Jersey, many residents appeared to be skateboarding on the seawalls or strolling calmly on the barrier beaches, scarves flapping in the wind. Others probably breaking into stores and cars, even as Irene was whipping up the waves.

OK. It's over. So can we move on?

Sick and tired of it. Do we really need to hear about the repair of each and every downed power line in the Pine Barrens or Upstate New York? The media even pretty much snubbed Boston.

Our "big blow" in northern Illinois was more than a month ago, and on the forested lots, there are still fallen trees stacked up like fire wood, which I suppose it will be, if and when the county gets around to picking it up. Send a news crew! OMG, we had a storm! Who would ever suspected such a thing might happen?

But wait! They still have six more East Coast governors to interview and applaud for listening to the weather reports. Yeah, quite an accomplishment for a politician, no?

I suppose next January, we'll have to sit through a series of man-on-the-street interviews about how dreadfully hot it is in Florida. Yeah. We know.

How about something that concerns the rest of us?

Save the Republic.

What a bunch of wusses

2011-08-26T14:01:00.000-05:00

No offense to the East Coast, but they've certainly "evolved" a purty fer distance from Daniel Boone et. al.

The East Coast was shaken by a 5.8 earthquake a couple days ago. Didn't do much damage except to structures very close to the epicenter in Mineral, VA. I happen to be slightly familiar with the surrounding area because it falls pretty close to Grant's road to Richmond. Not much around there except old battlefields and some pretty rugged, often heavily wooded terrain.

Anyway, some ceiling tiles were loosened in a public school, a couple grocery stores had stuff rocked off their shelves, at least one home was about completely collapsed, and now there's a large crack in the Washington Monument. And no end of whining and hysteria all up and down the East Coast. Especially in DC. A bunch of panicked federal workers scampering around the Mall. Had to leave work early, maybe their swivel chair rolled across the office and would no longer be safe to sit on.

The East Coast has suffered earlier and much worse eathquakes with about half the noise and panic.

A relative of mine lived less than a mile from the epicenter of the Northridge earthquake in L.A. about 12 - 15 years ago. The quake struck very early morning. He told me when he got up, in his kitchen he was knee-deep in broken glass, dishes, and shattered condiments. All the cabinets and the fridge were open. He could never again get glass to fit in the twisted patio doors. Outside, fountains gushed from broken water mains and flames were shooting up from broken gas mains. No phone service. No electricity.

A different relative lived many years in L.A. and told me -- laughing -- about putting her make-up on in the morning, getting ready to go to work, when a sudden tremor rocked her apartment building. She'd been applying mascara and with the abrupt shift in the landscape, ended up with a weird black streak across her face. Hard time cleaning that up, but she made it to work. Just a small setback.

But we're supposed to be all upset about this little tremblor back East.

Now the East Coast is threatened by Hurricane Irene. Last I heard, it had yet to make landfall and was already abating somewhat -- though it could re-energize, I suppose.

Wisely, I think, Bloomberg is shutting down subways, etc. in New York City as of noon Saturday. Irene is predicted to slam right into the city, and if it does with any force, the subways may flood. And all along the East Coast, residents are warned to evacuate. They have plenty of warning.

And because they have plenty of warning, why the panic?

You guys ever go outside, look up, and see the whole sky -- clouds looking like they're torn patches of black cardboard -- revolvng slowly around you? Tornado sirens going off all around. Only last month no one for miles around my neighborhood had any electricity due to fallen trees. The trees pulled down electrical wires. A fallen transformer was blocking a nearby intersection. I mean trees 50 to 100 feet tall uprooted and flung across the streets and highways. Difficult to drive anywhere for thing like candles or even food (no electricity, no refrigeration) -- traffic lights not working, gas pumps not working. And no place to go anyway, as the stores were all closed.

But we're supposed to be all on edge and worried about a dissipating hurricane maybe touching New York City.

Please. Grow up. Evacuate if you're scared. I would. At least you guys have some warning. With tornados, you get 15 minutes if you're lucky. And with those bizarre winds we had -- no warning at all. Just suddenly the wrenching crack of tree limbs (and trunks), roof tiles flying all over... not mention the flooding in low-lying areas, including sections of streets and highways.

And guess what? We all survived.

Save the Republic.

Coffee, Tea or Waters

2011-08-22T16:38:00.001-05:00

Maxine Waters, congressional rep from the 35th district, California -- that is, South Central Los Angele -- has told the Tea Party to "go to hell."

As a self-selected member of the Tea Party, I must say I'd prefer to go to hell rather than live in South Central L.A.

Waters' district is a classic example of "plantation politics." Or of a classic plantation of the old Slave South. The only difference is, the slaves couldn't get away from it; they were legally held as property by their owners. You can escape from South Central, but only if you reject all those things that Waters and those of her kind preach: that you are a helpless victim that must be infantalized and kept dependent in order to harvest your vote.

I mean, look at the structure of a slave plantation. You had Ol' Massa and the Missus at the top of the pyramid, makng all the decisions and dispensing whatever kindnesses were available, including medical assistance -- such as it was. The slaves were trained from birth to believe that they were stupid, incompetent, irresponsible, and could never manage their own lives by themselves. Ol' Massa sincerely believed, therefore, that he was owed a debt of gratitude by the slaves.

Now let's look at South Central L.A., as but one example of similar, blighted urban areas in the USA. You have Maxine Waters and like-minded politicians at the top of the pyramid, makng all the decisions and dispensing whatever kindnesses are available, including medical assistance -- such as it is. The district voters are trained from birth to believe that they're stupid, incompetent, irresponsible, and can never manage their own lives by themselves. Ol' Maxine sincerely believes, therefore, that she is owed a debt of gratitude by these voters. And she gets it every time her "dependency" re-elects her.

Eveything the slaves/district voters earn is gobbled up and/or appropriated by Ol' Massa/Maxine and the various levels of government. What benefits do they get for their labor -- if they can find jobs? They get public housing or welfare assistance, food stamps, maybe training for "green jobs" that most probably will never materialize. They get a mean and ugly subsistance.

In South Central L.A., your only chance to get ahead is to become a successful drug dealer, or to be lucky enough to do some really serious looting of electronics stores during a riot and then actually find buyers for those stolen goods. Otherwise, you're just pretty much stuck with whatever Ol' Maxine feels you "deserve" and what she can finagle from the federal government. Noblesse oblige.

'Course, Ol' Maxine's husband's bank gets millions in TARP funds or whatever, but then she lives on a very different level than her constituency, right? I mean, after all, she's Ruling Class. She deserves that kind of gratitude. No?

In fact, if Maxine Waters approved of the Tea Party, I'd think the Tea Party was doing something very, very wrong.

Save the Republic.

One small step for illegal aliens; one giant step toward dictatorship

2011-08-19T17:28:00.001-05:00

The Comrade and his friends in the executive branch decided yesterday that since Brain-dead Harry Reid's "Dream Act" bill failed in congress, that they would simply ignore the will of the American public and announce the Dream Act provisions in the form of some kind of dictatorial decree.

This is not the first time the Comrade has done this. The EPA is busily trashing the energy industry as we speak -- even though the Comrade didn't have a shot at getting his anti-coal, pro-windmill bullshit endorsed by congress. And using the NLRB as a bully pulpit for labor unions when the "card-check" crap didn't have a prayer of being legislated. Just a couple examples. There are many more.

I'll tell you the truth -- the Comrade's complete contempt for the law, for congress, for the democratic legislative process in the US is more important than any of these single issues.

He's a fucking autocrat. Diktator. Authoritarian. Tyrant. Whatever.

We can't afford to keep this piece of shit in office much longer, let alone pay for his luxury vacations. He's proved he can do as much, if not more damage, while sucking up federal dollars on a beach in New England as when he's actually in the Oval Office. He needs to go now. And his little dogs with him.

Save the Republic.

Food stamps as "stimulus"

2011-08-17T15:50:00.000-05:00

The current regime gets more and more desperate. Now the head of Agriculture is saying that food stamps are about the most powerful kind of stimulus you can have.

Man, this guy, Vilsack or something like that, really has his head up his butt.

He says every time you spend $1.00 in a grocery store, you impact the whole supply chain, triggering production, delivery trucks, stock boys, cashiers, blah-blah-blah. So if you spend $1.00, you generate $1.82 in the economy.

This is old. It's known as "the multiplier effect." And if it's true at all, it's true for spending private dollars as well as government food stamps.

The main difference is -- and please pay attention, Vilsack, et. al. -- EVERY TIME YOU SPEND $1.00 IN FOOD STAMPS, OR IN ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT PROGRAM, YOU CREATE $1.00 (AT LEAST) IN GOVERNMENT DEBT.

And the "multiplier effect" of government debt is... taking money out of the hands of investors and entrepreneurs who spend it to underwrite the creation and growth of productive -- that is, profit-making -- ventures. This is how the private sector creates jobs. And in succcessful ventures, profits keep on creating more and more jobs.

And then, of course, consider another "multiplier effect." That is, just gettng food stamps into the hands of the public requires how much MORE government spending? Collecting taxes, IRS processing, establishing agencies and systems to distribute the food stamps, etc etc etc. So how much is Obamacare going to cost us -- above and beyond legitimate payments to doctors, hospitals, etc. The socialized medicine bill creates something like 165 new government agencies. All to deliver "free" health care. Yeah. Right. (See, the Good Fairy from the East comes by and replenishes the US Treasury from time to time.)

With all this in view, I think $1.00 in food stamps probably costs the US economy about $12.00. But I'm just guessing. It's probably a lot higher than that.

I've also heard it said -- and by otherwise intelligent and well educated people -- that government stimuulus and private spending have exactly the same impact.

No, no, no, no, no. You see, with government spending, especially with stuff like food stamps, you get this wide disbursal of funds across many, many people. You know, a dollar here, a dollar there. It tends to make "capital formation" which is what banks and rich people do, impossible. And you need capital formation, or large pools of capital, to fund productive ventures, launch businesses and so forth.

Even the government needs capital formation for big projects. 'Course, since all government money is appropriated from private citizens, ANY CAPITAL THE GOVERNMENT HAS REPRESENTS GOVERNMENT DEBT. Worth keeping that in mind.

Got it? Good. It's not hard to understand. Apparently only the blockheads in government and Paul Krugmann fail to see it.

Save the Republic.

Comrade wants to listen... so listen

2011-08-16T14:02:00.001-05:00

Cute. Yesterday the Comrade was challenged in Iowa by Ryan Rhodes, who I've seen described as one of the organizers of the Iowa Tea Party.

Apparently Rhodes shouted out a couple questions while His Hindness was giving a speech, or maybe during a Q&A that followed. Then Rhodes relentlessly followed up in a reception line after the speech. I've been looking for the video on YouTube, but as of last night, it wasn't posted there.

Rhodes asked why the Comrade didn't object to idiot v.p. Biden, when Biden seemed to agree that conservative Republicans in congress are "terrorists."

The Comrade "explained" that the Republicans were "holding the nation hostage" and threatening to allow a default. Rhodes asked, quite calmly, something like, "Don't you think a balanced budget is a reasonable request?" And so on.

Significantly, and quite typically, Comrade Narcissist refuses to see the other side, that is, that Brain-dead Harry Reid did more than his part to "hold the nation hostage" by rejecting two proposals regarding the debt crisis that actually had passed the House. No, ol' Brain-dead and the Comrade aren't holding anyone hostage with their imbecilic actions and insane demands. If you don't bow and kiss their feet, you're the one who's behaving badly.

Well, Comrade, you called your Rolling Blunder thing a "listening tour." So take a listen. We are NOT on your side. We know what you're trying to do, and we will block you at every turn. Get used to it.

And kudos to Ryan Rhodes. I should think it would be quite intimidating to act like a rational and well-informed citizen amidst the frenzy of dem supporters, the Secret Service, etc. etc., trying to hold the Comrade's feet to the fire against His Hindness's highly regaled "charisma," if that's what you want to call it.

Thanks, Ryan! And by the way, have you considered running for president? Open field here.

Save the Republic.

Rolling Blunder -- Comrade's Midwest bus tour

2011-08-14T17:00:00.000-05:00

Lots of attention on Iowa just now, with the Straw Poll and wannabe Republican candidates gearing up for the "real" caucus early next year. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry both did not participate in the Straw Poll, though Romney has been active in Iowa, and Perry timed his announcement to eclipse the Iowa Straw Poll.

Micbele Bachman won the Iowa Straw Poll. Nice for her, kinda indicates where Iowa Republicans are at, but Straw Poll winners have only rarely won national nominations and/or the presidency.

What I find bizarre is in the midst of the Iowa State Fair and Straw Poll hoopla, Debi Wasserman Schulz shows up in a summer dress, disparaging Republicans and reminding us all that the Comrade is blameless. Like... what?

And the Comrade himself has launched a bus tour -- I call it "Rolling Blunder" -- through several Midwestern states this week, I think. The route has not been announced, apparently to spare the Comrade from threats on his life. Given his performance in office, however, it just seems consistent with an overall pattern of aimless meandering.

Anyway, what's with Rolling Blunder? I mean, what exactly is the point? And wasn't he supposed to go to Martha's Vineyard to allow the liberal rich some exposure to his glorious self?

Rolling Blunder just seems odd. Perhaps having seen what the dems did to trash and anihilate the Republicans in the run-up to the 2008 election, the Comrade et. al. feel compelled to go out and try to defend themselves against the onslaught of contradictory -- and much much better -- policy ideas proposed by the right. I mean if the Iowa Debates last Thursday night were an indication, Republicans have a lot more and lot better solutions for the US's problems.

No, I think it's just that the Comrade sees this party going on in the Midwest, he wasn't invited, but he's going to crash it -- and deep in his icy heart, he believes Midwesterners will be grateful to see him.

Ever hear the phrase "dog in the manger"? I'm not sure where it originated, but supposedly it relates to some attention-hungry dog climbing into Jesus's manger in Nazareth to bask in the reflected glory and woo attention away from the baby. Kind of like when a news person is doing a broadcast from a bar or something, and some drunk keeps poking his own slobbering face in front of the camera.

The Republicans have been drawing crowds -- the Comrade just can't resist rushing in and trying to claim them as his own.

I don't think it'll work for him, though. We've already seen quite enough of him.

Save the Republic.

Spending cuts or just go with the triggers?

2011-08-09T16:48:00.000-05:00

Busy all day so wasn't watching anything public very closely. However....

NYSE dropped a total of 635 points Monday. Apparently all the nervous nellies getting out. But today, finished about 434 on the plus side. So looks like the more experienced and hard-to-scare traders decided to buy cheap and have picked up a lot of the slack.

More importantly...

Last night on some show -- and sorry, so tired, I forget which -- a reporter said she was at a press conference of some kind with the Comrade. Newsies asking about how those automatic triggers in the Default Compromise would work.

You know, there's supposed to be a "super committee" created of 12 members, three dems and three Reps from both House and Senate. Then, by Thanksgiving, this committee is supposed to devise a plan to cut $1.5 TRILLION or so from the federal budget. Their recommendations will be voted on "straight up or down" -- no debate, no amendments.

So, if for some reason the recommendations from the super committee are not forthcoming, or are voted down, then that triggers huge cuts in the defense budget and in Medicare.

Pundits claim the defense budget cuts would alarm Republicans, while Medicare cuts would upset the dems. But I don't think so.

The reporter in that aforementioned news conference with the Comrade? Someone asked, "What happens if Medicare is cut? What will seniors do"

The reporter said that the Comrade's eyes shifted around, he mumbled nervously, and finally said, "Obamacare."

So looks like a lose-lose for Republicans and conservatives. And I don't think the dems on that committee will be willing to talk much to conservatives, or grant them any respect.

Like, Brain-dead Harry Reid announced his dem Senate picks for the super committee:

John Kerry, who never forgave the USA for Vietnam (though his time there was very short and comparatively uneventful, he's lived off anti-war sentiment ever since)
Max Baucus, who was a leading pile-driver shoving socialized medicine down our throats
Patty Murray, whom I'm not familiar with, but she's from Washington state, so probably believes human beings should leave the planet to the owls and fish.

What? No Barney Fudd?

So, not looking good, right? It depends on who the Republicans chose. But anyone who would actually work at making REAL budget cuts would just serve as counter-weight to these dem jerks from the Senate, who aren't about to "compromise" on anything. And I can only imagine which dems Pazzo Pelosi will chose from the House. Hmmm, let's see, that socialist from Vermont? (I don't want to give her any ideas.)

Oh well, we'll just have to vote all these creeps out of office next time. But there will be lots of stuff to undo.

Save the Republic.

Insane, stupid, or deliberate?

2011-08-08T13:43:00.000-05:00

Well, the Comrade was just on TV once again. First time since S&P downgraded US notes, though he did roust David Axelrod to step out and deliver the same old message, with a few new twists.

Seems even the Comrade realizes that George Bush is long-gone. So now he blames the Japanese tsunami, "events in the Middle East," and what was it? Oh, the weather.

And the Comrade still wants to raise taxes and spend more money. Especially spend more money. And lately he's been hinting at doing away with Medicare, too. I mean, really, who needs seniors? Many of them still remember how capitalism is supposed to work. Get rid of them as quickly as possible.

"A definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results." Dr. Phil says this a lot, but I read that it was actually Albert Einstein who first went on the record with it.

Oh, how could I forget? One more group to blame:

"My policies have not worked at all. In fact, they've made the situation much, much worse. The Tea Party won't let me make the same mistakes of the same magnitude, so they must share in the blame for my failure."

Is this making any sense to you?

Look, only three options. Either the Comrade really is insane. He's incapable of learning. Or he's deliberately working toward destroying free market capitalism.

Which explanation fits most closely?

When I say he's a marxist socialist, that' based on a factual assessment of his policies. I'm not just calling him names. He is a marxist socialist. He and Michelle were probably sipping champagne and dancing to "The International" all weekend. Probably didn't want the nation to see how thrilled he was that the US economy is taking such a hit.

We really need to get rid of this guy.

Save the Republic -- you know what to do.

I understand the socialists...

2011-08-06T17:46:00.000-05:00

Yes, I do understand the socialists. They've worked subrosa for decades trying to bring down capitalism. All their work, their labor, the lies they've palmed off, the dollars devoted to propaganda, to corrupting the education system, to planting their fanatics in key positions in government. Lots and lots of work has gone into that. Many died before seeing their dreams come true. And now they're so very close to crushing capitalist-driven economic prosperity in America. All it takes is one little push... just one whopping tax increase, a few more crippling regulations, and the nation will never recover.

For the socialists, it's jut heartbreaking that the Tea Party, amongst the great mass of other U.S. citizens, flatly reject the notion of a purposeless and hopeless life. What on earth could be wrong with those people who want to create a better future for themselves and their kids? The socialists are dogmatically insistent that their way is the only way. Despite the fact that socialism has brought nothing but despair and poverty to every nation that has tried it.

On Fox just now, they had some silly twit dem spokesperson vs. a guy who had worked for Jeb Bush, supposedly "debating" the credit downgrade.

The moderator framed it by saying: You're little kids having a fight. Your mom has just sat you down together in a room to work things out. What do you have to say for yourselves?

The conservative guy: We have to stop the spending and especially have to rein in entitlements.

The dem woman: This is all the fault of the Tea Party. They're standing in our way.

'Nuff said?

Save the Republic.,

Dumbass dems own debt rating downgrade

2011-08-05T22:14:00.000-05:00

Hey, Brain-dead Harry Reid! Dickhead Durbin! Pazzo Pelosi! Comrade Osama!

YOU DUMBASSES HAPPY NOW?

Y'all wouldn't accept any reasonable program for the dramatic and meaningful budget cuts proposed ad nauseum from the "extremists" on the right. N-o-o-o-o. Let's just keep spending like total brainless idiots.

S&P sees the writing on the wall, though your blockheads are blind to anything but your own ambition and to hell with the USA.

Well, we'll see who gets elected next time, you shit-fot-brains. Thank God the rest of the country is not quite so damn stupid as you all.

Meanwhile the idiot in the White House gives a speech hinting at another stimulus? How has this moron managed to survive this long in the real world? That's my question. Can he even get himself across a busy street without getting run over? What a damn fool.

Save the Republic

Dow dropping like a stone

2011-08-04T14:46:00.000-05:00

Haven't written here since the debt ceiling compromise was passed. I don't like the deal, but it passed. Big whoop. Really, it's about the best congress could do, given the number of socialists voting there.

But apparently the markets don't like the deal, either. The Dow has been on a losing streak for a couple of weeks now. It lost over 300 points today, not unusual. Jay Carneybarker says that it's probably due to the Japanese tsunami. Yeah, I'm sure Wall Street just heard about that, and all the traders are on tenterhooks awaiting the outcome.

Watched a brief man-on-the-street thing yesterday, a reporter going around New York City, asking people what they thought of the debt. Predictably, many people asked, "What debt?" The reporter asked one guy, "Do you know how much the national debt is?" The man answered, "Fourteen billion." The reporter said, "TRILLION." The man-on-the-street's eyes got real big and he noted, "TRILLION? Damn, that's crazy!"

Yeah. But apparently not frightening enough to the jerks in DC to actually do anything about it.

Putin called the U.S. "parasites on the global economy" or something like that. Well, he oughta know.

Pazzo Pelosi was on TV, too, a couple days ago, whining about how the debt deal "Tied our hands so we can't create jobs." This is such a stupid comment I should just let it go, but...

Look, once again, Pazzo, the government doesn't create the kinds of jobs required in a free market system -- or in any viable and productive human system at all. When the government creates a job, it creates more debt, because it's got to pay the worker. Got that? That's non-productive. That's just treading water. That's totally useless. It doesn't boost or stimulate or support much of anything.

The only jobs that help the economy are those created by private industry, because private employees actively create wealth through their productivity. But with Obamacare hanging over our heads, the threat of increasing taxes when the "Bush tax cuts" expire, ongoing mortgage crisis in the banks, the fed sucking up all the capital, Big Labor working tirelessly to jack up the cost of labor and over-regulate corporations, etc.... any new-hire employee would have to bring in a truckload of money to justify the cost of hiring him or her.

So no one has any money to spend. No need to produce much. No need to hire anyone. The economy gets sucked into a downward spiral. Circling the drain, you could say.

Socialists just don't get it. They really believe in Santa Claus, or manna raining down from heaven, or something like that. Ultimately, they place the "full faith and credit of the U.S. dollar" into the hands of the guys who run the printing presses. And paper dollars with nothing of substance behind them are just kindling, basically.

I'm pretty sure the market/economic "peak" of last April was the result of the Fed pumping lots of worthless paper bills into the economy. That creates inflation, prices go up arbitrarily. People complained, so they stopped. So the markets decline back to where they were.

Oh, and it was the Comrade's birthday yesterday. Another chance to party and raise funds for his campaign. Glad he found something he can do right to keep him occupied. And he says he's working non-stop trying to create jobs.

You know, that's exactly the problem. Get the hell out the economy and we'll be just fine. It's all the government meddling and regulation that's driving economic collapse.

How can anyone fail to see that anymore?

'Course then there's the ditzy blonde from Pepperdine or someplace who was on Cavuto last week, asking, "The corporations have all this money. Why don't they hire people?" Demonstrating such a monumental lack of information... if I were Pepperdine, I'd re-consider her tenure. There is a major, major difference between "corporation" and "charity."

Save the Republic.

Extreme leftists unraveling debt deal

2011-08-01T14:13:00.000-05:00

Funny thing, we've heard about nothing but "extreme rightists' and Tea Party members weakening the democratic (that's democratic, not "democrat") process by standing on principle and refusing to compromise on this debt ceiling thing. Boehner was supposed to be "weak" for taking so much time to get what turned out to be TWO bills through the House to solve the debt ceiling issue.

And both killed in the Senate with barely a mention.

OK. so didn't I say the Senate would never vote on Brain-dead Harry Reid's proposals because HE DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES IN A DEM-CONTROLLED SENATE? And isn't that exactly what happened? 'Ol Brain-dead went bawling and whining to the Comrade and begged for another "high-level" conference. Ol' Brand-dead couldn't handle it on his own. (You know, I heard he used to be a boxer. No wonder his brain dysfunctional.)

Personally, I don't like the current deal. I don't like a $3 TRILLION increase in debt with $1 TRILLION in cuts now and more to come. (Where have I heard that before?) And the built-in triggers -- automatic cuts to defense and Medicare.

The Comrade really doesn't like old people. Have you noticed that? His "solution" for the volume of retiring Boomers -- deny them adequate care -- which they've paid for all their lives -- and hope they die as quickly and quietly as possible. Better still -- refuse to pay their doctors and hospitals and watch them deteriorate searching for medical advice. I suppose that's the work of Dr. Deathwish, the czar who loves the British death panel.

So, anyway, getting back to the debt ceiling... Pazzo Pelosi, a leading member of the merry marxists, has told her blockheaded following to "vote their conscience." Yeah, like they have a conscience. I think what she means is: Vote no, although I'm such a gutless wonder and so afraid of offending the Comrade I won't go on the record with that."

So looks the bill may go down, and not because of the Tea Party, but because of rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth extremist marxist socialists on the other side of the aisle.

HEY, MAINSTREAM MEDIA -- THINK YOU CAN GET THIS ONE CORRECT?

Actually, Brian Williams and Chris Mathews will probably spend all evening pondering on exactly when Pelosi joined the Tea Party. Like the Tea Party would have her.

Save the Republic.

"Cloud of Uncertainty" White House's latest buzzword

2011-08-01T12:28:00.000-05:00

OK, first of all, briefly, the supposed deal on the debt ceiling sucks. It only demonstrates that what needs to be done is to remove the president and all his freak show from office. That's coming.

What I wanted to talk about, though, is: How stupid does the Comrade and particularly that David Fluff guy and Jay Carneybarker -- the Comrade's mouthpieces and speech writer -- how stupid do they think we are?

First of all, let's go back and consider that Time or Newsweek cover that had profiles of the Comrade and Ronal Reagan side-by-side. Really? The Comrade and Reagan? You're comparing?

You've got to be kidding. Not even apples and oranges. More like Karl Marx and Milton Friedman. It would have been funny except that it illustrates how pathetic this president is in over-reaching for borrowed glory. The comparison would be insulting except that it's so desperately ridiculous.

Then throughout this whole debt ceiling thing, the Comrade continued to drag Ronald Reagan's name into every discussion somehow, as well as insisting that his voracious appetite for tax money and spending was somehow "balanced." No doubt a term that resonated among some focus groups because of the word's association with Fox News. However, it doesn't apply to the Comrade's approach, and he fooled no one.

I think if you replay all his little press conferences in slow motion, you'd probably find "Reagan" and "balanced" slipped in as unconscious suggestions between the also-familiar terms "tax the rich" and "George Bush's fault."

Now Jay Carneybarker comes out to a press briefing and announces, "Did you notice that cloud of uncertainty outside the White House has lifted?"

An hour later, Valerie Jarret, sr. advisor to the Comrade, gets on Fox and in a three-minute spot, repeated "cloud of uncertainty" at least three times. As though she has Tourette's Syndrome.

So this is their latest strategy for re-election? Repeat certain phrases over and over again, like conducting some kind of Pavlovian experiment? At the term "cloud of uncertainty" are we all supposed to salivate like hungry dogs or what?

(FYI Pavlov was a scientist who trained dogs by ringing a bell shortly before they were fed. After a certain number of repetitions, the dogs would begin to salivate at the sound of the bell.)

Listen, fools, the "cloud of uncertainty" this White House created extends far, far beyond the debt ceiling issue. That's only one tiny part of it. How about excessive and expensive new regulations from EPA? How about shutting down Gulf oil drilling and refusing to drill in ANWR? How about selling out Chrysler and GM to the UAW? How about flushing $800 billion down the stimulus toilet? How about the impending (and continuing) threat of tax increases? How about the coming disaster of Obamacare that hangs over all of our heads like the blade of a guillotine?

So this half-assed and unacceptable deal about the debt crisis lifted all the "clouds of uncertainty." In your dreams.

And the Comrade vs. Reagan?

Give me a break.

Save the Republic.

So what do dems want in debt ceiling?

2011-07-31T05:26:00.000-05:00

We're still inthe midst of the debt ceiling thing, largely because Brain-dead Harry Reid killed the Republican House bill in the Senate and is trying to substitute his own.

Funny thing is, though (and forgive any typos 'cause I'm laughing) Reid can't get enough votes in the dem-controlled Senate to support it.

In addition, the House gave the language in Reid's bill a run-through and it was heavily defeated by a bipartisan mix of dems and Reps.

I've read everything I could get my hands on about Reid's bill. Tough, because it's a weekend and reporters also like some time off every now and then. And I don't go to the networks for news. That leaves all the leftist newspapers and Fox.

Anyway, what I've been able to gather is that the Reid bill calls for raising the debt ceiling by $2.9 TRILLION through around March, 2013 -- conveniently after the 2012 elections so the dems can avoid walking around with egg on their faces during their election campaigns. And the bill also offers budget cuts of about $2.4 TRILLION -- OVER TEN YEARS.

Yeah, right. I'm looking for that flight of donkeys that should be over the roof right about now. Nothing so far.

Boehner's bill allows for raising the debt ceiling by $900 billion through around January, 2012, with $917 billion in cuts taken immediately. It requires congress to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment. (70% of US voters favor this. Apparently everyone but hard-core far-left dems.) Also, a committee would take up the issue of finding further budget cuts, these to be available by January, 2012. And the debt ceiling will come up again for consideration in January 2013. Historically, most debt ceiling increases have run only about six to seven months.

Then the Comrade sticks his ugly mug into the debate again regarding "triggers" that are intended to enforce the controls on spending. (Actually, I don't see any controls on spending in the Reid bill, but maybe that's just 'cause I live outside the Beltway. So far from the fantasy.)
Apparently in the Boehner bill, if the feds fail to make the promised budget cuts, and spending rises over a certain level, that triggers cuts in federal spending somehow.

What the Comrade prefers in an "enforcement clause" is that if spending exceeds certain limits, taxes will automatically go up.

He certainly is slick, isn't he? Under the Reid bill, and if it includes the Comrade's fondest wishes, the Comrade won't have to answer to voters about how badly he's wrecked the economy with his reckless indifference toward Other Peoples' Money. AND he hopes to reward himself with automatice tax hikes that will be no one's responsibility. Hey, shit happens. Ain't the Comrade's fault.

So, Comrade, try this for one of your heartwarming little radio addresses. "Too bad you poor dumb slobs in the hinterland have had to give up electricity this month to pay your taxes. Sigh... But vote for me, because I am blameless." That will be his 2012 campaign bumper sticker. "I have done NOTHING!"

And that's still better than the truth.

Did you know that according Rasmussen Reports, the Comrade's approval rating is about the lowest it's ever been? Also saw a recent number stating that while the Comrade got an extraordinary 98% of the black vote in the 2008 election, his support from blacks now is down around 77%. So I guess the supposed historical significance of the Comrade's election is wearing pretty thin as an excuse to keep him in office.

Reid delayed the Senate vote on his bill until this afternoon, Sunday, 7/31. My bet is that the vote won't be taken at all. He won't be able to round up enough support. 'Cause you know, the Comrade is not the only one running in 2012, and members of congress don't get helicopters and limos and Secret Service. They get the heat and noise at the Town Halls.

Save the Republic.

Bait'n'switch on debt ceiling bill

2011-07-30T08:23:00.000-05:00

Well, it seems since House Speaker John Boehner and the House got a debt ceiling bill through, it's really the only game in town in terms of reducing the debt, staving off default, and restoring the USA's credit rating.

The bill in question was tabled in the Senate without any consideration whatsoever, and it seems the strategy to move forward is pretty dodgy and disgusting. But just about what you'd expect from the reprobates in congress.

See, Brain-dead Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, also introduced a bill that's pretty much a piece of crap, It has only phoney spending cuts in it, no enforcement of said "cuts," and raises the debt ceiling so high, the issue won't have to be revisited until after the 2012 election. He doesn't have the votes in the Senate to pass this piece of crap legislation and it certainly wouldn't make it through the House.

Apparently Brain-dead Harry's bill was devised solely for the purpose of getting the Comrade and the merry marxists re-elected without putting on pulic parade (again) all the underhanded lying and deception, irresponsible spending and generally dictatorial and nation-killing polices of the dems. Brain-dead's bill raises the debt ceiling by $2.4 TRILLION, which the dope believes will be good enough to cover USA profligate spending until 2013.

Anyway, Brain-dead Harry's strategy seems to be to take the House bill that's in the Senate now, slice it open like a codfish, empty out all the guts, and stuff it full of the unacceptable bullshit that's in Brain-dead Harry's bill. Then send it back to the House for "reconciliation."

Bait'n'switch, dontcha know. That's when you're lured into a deal by a great, high-quality product, but what you get is a cheap knock-off that doesn't work. It's something con artists do, and it's a crime -- unless you're in the U.S. Senate and believe you're above the law.

Totally disgusting. And does Brain-dead and his little comrades -- and big Comrade -- think the American people aren't going to notice this foul maneuver and won't object? Where have they been for the last few years?

I don't know. They pull these cheap tricks right in front of us and expect no one will notice. Theylie straight-faced and NBC, ABC, and CBS simply pass along the lies. I mean, who the hell do the people think they're dealing with?

I could make a few suggestions about how to handle this whole situation, but then I'd probably be arrested. And these turds aren't worth me spending time in jail. I'll be happy simply thnking of them roasting on spit over a large bonfire in hell.

Well, Brain-dead Harry, go on ahead and play your stupid and treasonous games. And see what good it will get you. You'll go down in history as the man greased the skids for the collapse of the greatest nation that ever existed. 'Course what the hell do you care about things like that? Simply over your head.

Save the Republic.

Exactly where is "Planet Reid"?

2011-07-29T23:09:00.001-05:00

Weird day in politics today.

It started out with Chuckelhead Schumer, Brain-Dead Reid, Dickhead Durbin and others in press conferences, bacially crowing and hectoring John Boehner, because Boehner's Second debt ceiling bill hadn't got through the House yet. Boehner was having a hard time lining up votes behind it -- the Tea Party reps stood their ground and wanted to attach a Constitutional amendment to the bill calling for a balanced budget for the federal government.

I might add, among all voters, a Balanced Budget Amendment polls with about a 70% approval rating. That proposal has a higher approval rating than any member of congress. Just so you know.

But the dem gang from the Senate continued insisting this was so "extremist" that not even the Republicans in the House would vote for it. They kind of reminded me of, you know, in gangster movies, like "Goodfellas," where the gang stands around a guy on the ground and keeps kicking him. That's the visual Schumer, Reid, and Durbin presented. Not pretty.

As it turns out, however, Boehner got the bill passed in the House with a few votes to spare. And then it went to the Senate.

Brain-Dead Harry wanted to table it, just like he tabled the earlier TWO House budget bills, and guess what? Ol' Brain-Dead didn't have the 60 votes he needed to kill the bill in the Senate.

About this time I was rolling on the floor laughing, coffee shooting out my nose.

So Ol' Brain-Dead did what he usually does when he's losing -- he changed the rules of the game. Can't get a two-thirds majority? Well, then change the rules to a simple majority, that is 51 votes. He did get that and House bill was tabled.

Don't you wish, when your team's down 6-5, that suddenly you could count "reaching second base" as a home run? The Senate really is a mess, ain't it? No wonder they all have such a hard time with reality.

So now what? Turns out, Ol' Brain-Dead did submit his own debt ceiling bill about a week ago. It's all crap. No real spending cuts in it at all -- just things like, "Hey, let's agree NOT to launch free trips to the moon for every illegal alien under 18." See, by NOT passing that legislation, see how much money Brain-Dead's bill saves?

Not quite a cut, but Brain-Dead has demonstrated repeatedly that he doesn't know how to count to 10, or to 60, for that matter. And guess what, Brain-Dead doesn't have the votes in the Senate to even pass that lame and uselss proposal.

And I can't seriously imagine it would go anywhere in the House.

Meahwhile, the Comrade got his little face on TV today, early, also whining about extremists and all that kinda useless crap. Apparently he also promised a bunch of tree-huggers that he will continue to do his best to anihilate whatever remains of the American auto industry.

Didn't I say months -- if not years -- ago that the Comrade is so far out of the mainstream that he was making himself irrelevant to the political system? He's about reached that destination -- Planet Reid.

So -- to cap this all off with a good laugh.... Ol' Brain-Dead doesn't have the votes to get his own stupid debt ceiling measure through the Senate. So, in his usual fashion, he declared that the Republicans are "filibustering" the Senate.

The Republicans don't really have enough people in the Senate to do a filibuster. If they did, I think the Republican bill from the House would still be on the floor.

Kinda makes you wonder, again, about exactly how many marbles Ol' Brain-Dead Reid has lost over recent weeks. OK, this is how you get to Planet Reid: close your eyes and pretend you're surrounded by supportive voters who believe anything you say. Or picture an SEIU meeting.

Save the Republic.

"Extreme" is the the new America. Deal with it.

2011-07-27T15:43:00.000-05:00

Well, Senator Chucklehead Schumer (d-NY) a few weeks ago sent out a memo to his dem gang members advising them to always tack on the adjective "extreme" when speaking of Republicans. See, the democrats are incapable of independent thought, so they need these kinds of directives. Otherwise they just stand around like Pazzo Pelosi, waving their hands around like theiy're doing slow-motion Karate exercises and mumbling complete nonsense that no one can quite figure out. Anyway, so now all the dems are claiming that "extreme" Republicans are holding up the debt ceiling legislation.

OK, let's just think about this for a minute.

The dems have spent $4 TRILLION over the last 2.5 years. I'm tellin' ya, I wouldn't have any idea how to get rid of that much money in such a short time. What the hell are they doing? Burning it?

In addition, the feds now have to borrow 40 to 43 cents of every dollar they spend -- because they don't have all this money they're spending. And this huge debt is one major reason that the USA is unable to recover from the ongoing economic depression.

But it's "extreme" when Republicans try to put the brakes on spending to help fix the economy?

Exactly what universe do these people live in?

I mean, would it make sense to you to go out and rent a penthouse for $5,000 a month when your entire income is like about $3,000 a month? And you have no idea where to get the additional funds? And Mommy and Daddy Taxpayer getting pretty damn impatient about your recklessness and irresponsibility.

Please explain to me how this kind of profligate spending would be "reasonable" or "moderate."

The only answer the dems have for that would be, "Well, we NEED to spend. In fact, we can't get anybody to vote for us unless we buy them things."

And then ol' Chucklehead, in lock-step with brain-dead Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, complains that they can't do anything in the Senate until they get a bill from the House.

THEY HAVE TWO BUDGET BILLS FROM THE HOUSE ALREADY IN THE SENATE. ONE WAS KILLED IN COMMITTEE (Ryan budget) AND THE OTHER WAS TABLED (Cut, Cap and Balance).

In addition, Brain-dead Harry says he won't allow the Senate to consider any bill the House would present.

So, why on earth should the Republicans in the House even bother?

But the Republicans are "extreme" and "unwilling to compromise"-- is this is gibberish the dems are peddling today?

I'd like to add that the "extreme" Republicans represent the MAINSTREAM of America. Look at the results from the November 2010 elections, buttheads. Read 'em and weep. You'll only get more of the same in 2012. Especially after this fiasco.

Went to sleep last night in America and woke up in Never-Neverland, populated by a bunch of half-baked, donkey-headed Peter Pans who "never gonna grow up, never gonna grow up, never gonna grow!"

Save the Republic.

Clearly, president wants default

2011-07-26T15:25:00.000-05:00

Well a pattern has emerged over the 2.something hell-years of the Comrade's tenure in the White House.

His aim is now and always has been to destroy the USA as we know it -- as a free country, as a free market, as a properous nation. That's what he's always intended: "fundamental transformation."

So with an economy as varied and powerful as the USA once enjoyed, you can take a two-pronged attack. Destroy individual industries where you can -- like housing and automotive and insurance through socialized medicine.

But the real prize is to wipe out private capital -- either through taxation -- which is tough, because the wealthy, including wealthy corporations, still have money coming in no matter how high you raise taxes.

So the other alternative is to wipe out the value of their holdings.

This is where we are now. The Comrade obliterating 234 years of hard work, innovation, creativity and just in general, the blood, sweat, and tears of every American who ever lived, had a dream, and made it work.

The Comrade doesn't like that. He can't control it. It makes him nervous. He just might pee his pants if anyone escapes his control.

This is a nasty, brutal, devious and power-mad sicko.

It's very clear.

What do we do now? We can't have this for even another two years.

Save the Republic.

President remarkably useless

2011-07-25T21:16:00.001-05:00

Listened to the Comrade addressing the nation tonight.

Call me naive, I thought he might add something to the debt ceiling debate. But no, just the same old b.s. To wit:

It's all Bush's fault
Tax the rich
I am blameless
I am holding hostage Social Security checks
If anyone comes up with a solution, it's due to my guidance.

Who the hell does he think he's talking to? Just in real terms, the actual debate has moved on from his position, with two proposals -- one from the House, one from the Senate -- announced today. Neither one of them has tax increases. The Senate one includes tax and spending cuts only in the way of smoke and mirrors.

So I guess the Comrade was out all day golfing or talking to those he hopes are ignorant and uninformed voters -- those who may vote for him, soon as they turn 18 and/or get their citizenship papers before the 2012 election -- and missed all the congressional activity.

So the Comrade demonstrated that he's a total buffoon. Useless and irrelevant. He's still voting "present." And he thinks that will get him elected.

What an amazing asshole. Really, it boggles the mind.

And who's that silly Jackson bitch from Texas? The one who was jabbering away on her cell phone when a constituent was trying to talk to her during a Town Hall meeting last year. Shirley Jackson or somethig like that. She made a speech last week asking, "What is it about this president, and only this president" that makes people oppose him?

I'll tell ya, Shirley. Only this president is a rigid marxist socialist. Only this president is a total ignoramus on the economy. Only this president blew $4 TRILLION in less than three years. And only this president still hopes to spend even more.

That's what makes him outstanding.

Monumental asshole. The likes of which we may never (hopefully) ever encounter again.

Save the Republic

Rs & ds, compare & contrast

2011-07-24T19:03:00.001-05:00

On "Fox News Sunday" today, Chris Wallace had Tim Geithner and John Boehner back-to-back. An interesting study in contrasts.

Geithner (who gave up on the closed fist, now pointing fingers aggressively) made a few points:

The feds cut 80 million checks every month
The economy is recovering despite the fact that unemployment has increased and only 18,000 new jobs were created in June.
Anything that appears problematic in the economy is due to: George W. Bush, oil prices (and the Comrade has nothing to do with that?), the tsunami in Japan, and the weather.

Wallace asked him repeatedly if no compromis is reached on the debt ceiling, what's his plan for distributing those 80 million checks? That is, who will or won't get a check?

Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid recipients may be affected with default. "Nothing can be done about it." (Note the use of the passive voice, which means basically, "Hey, shit happens.")

Then John Boehner came on, and before Chris Wallace even asked a question, Boehner noted, "I know the president is worried about the next election, but shouldn't we be worried about this country?"

Wallace asked about a proposed deal Boehner had with the Comrade last week, which included $800 billion in increased revenues for the government. Where would these additonal revenues come from?

A flatter and fairer tax structure
Economic growth
NOT an increase in taxes

Boehner added:

"I didn't come here to be a congressman. I didn't become Speaker because I wanted a big fancy job. I wanted to do something for the country."
"If we do the right thing for the country, we won't have to worry about what happens in the next election."

Gee, I don't know. Who do you like better?

And let's not overlook Senate Majority Whip Dickhead Durbin (d-IL), who had to stick in his two cents from Chicago -- not on the Sunday show, but in a brief clip. Dickhead wants us all to know that the Republicans are stubbornly standing in the way of more unbridled and irresponsible government spending that will turn the USA into a badly managed copy of Zimbabwe.

Yeah. We know. That's why we voted Tea Party last November and why we will vote that way again in 2012.

Thanks, Mr. Boehner and Mr. Cantor. If anyone suspected you were getting wobbly and losing a sense of commitment to supporting free market capitalism and individual liberty in the USA, maybe they'll think again.

Tried to email Boehner yesterday with my support -- the servers were tied up. So I guess I'm not the only person standing behind him. In fact, in polls over the last few weeks, anywhere between 60% to 70% of the US population wants to cut spending and doesn't want to increase the debt ceiling.

Save the Republic.

The "Peter Principle" at work in DC

2011-07-24T06:22:00.001-05:00

I guess it was quite a while ago that a book called The Peter Principle was a major bestseller. It presented something that you can call an explanation for the breakdown of everything, including the fall of the Roman Empire, and it seems to be at work right now within the democrat party.

In a nutshell, the Peter Principle states that people will be promoted to one level ABOVE their competence. That is, suppose you're a terrific shipping clerk. So the shipping manager retires and you get promoted to his position. Where you're a toad out of water, have no idea what to do, and make a mess out of everything. So you don't get any further promotions and the shipping function goes down the tubes. Yet the guy who promoted you doesn't want to admit he made a mistake...

If I recall correctly, such a situation calls for "being kicked upstairs." That is, being moved out of an important job where you really have to produce something to some in-name-only post in the executive suite. Until you finally figure it out and, if you have any honor, voluntarily resign, red-faced and humble beneath your enthusiasm for your extended Florida vacation.

We have a president who's a great campaigner. Not only a great campaigner, but a great and far-thinking political strategist. He's really good at winning elections. Creating crises that he dumps in other peoples' laps, and then if a solution is forthcoming, scampers like a spoiled lap dog to the microphone to claim the credit. The only problem, he's entirely incompetent at governing. He's been promoted w-a-a-a-a-y beyond his level of competence. He doesn't know how to manage anything. He's incapable of making decisions. He doesn't know how to accept responsibility.

Could say something similar might apply to Harry Reid, but he's just such an all-around dolt and blockhead I can't imagine him succeeding at anything but the US Senate. I can't even imagine Harry Reid campaigning. I mean, he can't talk without mumbling and slurring. Apparently he hasn't even mastered the teleprompter, preferring to read jotted, incoherent gibberish from 3"x5" index cards cribbed in his sweaty palms. I really think he should be checked for Alzheimer's or possibly a stroke. I'm perfectly serious about that. He doesn't seem to be "all there."

Pazzo Pelosi is just a bubblehead. Daddy's little girl. Hey, you folks in Maryland, Daddy's long dead. You can stop paying tribute now, unless some kind of goon squad still survives and is holding your families hostage. Yeah, I am referring to Steny Hoyer and that painfully slick Von Holland dude. First among peers, Pazzo leads the pack of the entirely empty-headed. A plastic face and no brain. She must, however, throw terrific wine and cheese collectives for her San Francisco constituency, pretending to be Old Money from New England, laughing at un-funny "insider" jokes and oh so concerned about those unwashed masses. Try to stand next to the guy from Berkeley.

Then we have Tim Geithner. Truth be told, I also have trouble with Turbo Tax. But then, no one in their wildest dreams would ever consider me for US Treasurer. One thing I really can't stand about Geithner is that he does that Clinton thing with his hand, waving his right hand around in a closed fist, thumb on top, like he's shaking up a bottle of Pepsi. I suppose Clinton does that because it's less rude than pointing. No idea why Geithner does it. Maybe in the same way that all the pols copied JFK's hair style for a couple decades, hoping the glamor would rub off. Geithner kinda reminds me of a hopelessly nerdly type. I was surprised to read somewhere that he's actually married. He probably relies on his wife to find them bridge partners and lets her do all the talking.

Author Mark Levin, who also has an excellent radio show, calls these people the president's "freak show." Yeah. "There! I said it!"

Not one among them worth "a pitcher full of warm spit," to borrow a term from a former vice president, Cactus Jack somebody.

And on the other side of the aisle? Well, there's the old, experienced honchos, and while I did kind of like Mitch McConnell for a time, I'm beginning to wonder about his competence after he suggested that congress, as a "fall-back position," simply abdicate its Constitutional power over the US budget. Yeah, what the hell, Mitch, just let the Comrade do whatever he wants, spend as much as he likes. McConnell would, thereby, remain blameless. And the country would go to hell in handbasket, but who gives a damn about that? I mean, is that even Constitutional? I mean, can congress actually transfer its power to another branch of government? What would Madison do?

I actually think the longer-serving or Old Guard Republicans are just as befuddled by the Tea Party folks as NBC and Slate "journalists" are. I mean, the Old Guard Republicans, like the dems, were pretty much used to behaving as though the Constitution was just a moderately amusing historical artifact, safely squirreled away in a vault in the Smithsonian. Now they're actually being called upon to read the damn thing and take it seriously. What the heck is going on here? Take away the earmarks and they're totally adrift. (Job description is actually IN the Constitution, people.)

Overall, I do believe the Comrade has promoted one more crisis than he can handle. He forgets, like all dictators, that ultimately it's the great mass of citizens that determine what kind of government they have. Or don't have. Which is exactly why marxism has never worked anywhere, ever. You can murder and incarcerate trouble-makers for a while, but eventually everyone just gets really sick of it. And it surely can't work in the USA. I mean most citizens look at what's going on in Washington and asking, "What the hell are they thinking?"

Know what an oxymoron is? It's a contradiction in terms. Liberals like to give as an example "military intelligence" In place of that, I'd like to suggest the example "government accountability."

We're going to need a whole big bunch of new candidates in 2012.

Save the Republic

Comrade Osama "big daddy" gettin' things done. Yeah, right.

2011-07-22T17:18:00.001-05:00

The Comrade, economic terrorist, is on TV right now, talking about how hard he's tried to get an agreement on the debt ceiling. But, sigh.... congress just can't agree.

What a #$%^&*()_ fool. Honestly.

HE'S THE ONE WHO WON'T AGREE TO ANYTHING. HIS IDEA OF "BALANCED" MEANS, "GIVE ME EVERYTHING I WANT!"

The stupid blockhead just now asked of Republicans, "Can they say yes to anything?"

The Republicans have put forward at least three budget proposals, any of which would fix the problem.

IT'S COMRADE OSAMA AND THE CLOWSN IN THE SENATE WHO SAY NO -- WHO WON'T EVEN CONSIDER ANY OF THESE PROPOSALS.

But you can count on economic terrorist Comrade Osama to try to spin this so he:

1. Remains blamess
2. Can still turn the USA in a dictatorial direction.

What a nasty shit. Really. He creates crisis after crisis after crisis and blames it all on other people. And he just said further, "Congress will just have to give me the power to raise the debt ceiling."

Clear now -- the MF'er wants to be king, dictator-in-chief of the USA. To hell with the republic.

He's not even a fool. He's evil. It's very clear now.

Save the Republic.

Harry Reid a dead weight on the nation

2011-07-22T15:08:00.000-05:00

This will be short.

Well, the "Cut, Cap, and Balance" proposal is dead in the U.S. Senate. The legislation, passed by the House, would cut spending, cap future spending, and launch a Constitutional amendment -- which would need to be approved by the states -- to compel the federal government to control itself.

So, it went to the Senate. It was actually introduced on the floor.

Then Harry Reid tabled it.

OK, blockhead, where's YOUR plan? $14.3 TRILLION on 23-red? (He is from Nevada.)

I'm pretty sure Reid has Old-timer's disease. Maybe somebody better check this our for the sake of the nation.

Save the Republic.

R.I.P. to the Space Program

2011-07-21T16:20:00.000-05:00

Having been pretty comfortable and having been stone dead broke, I've realized there's two ways you can look at things. Basically, you can look up or down, grow or contract, create or consume. This is the fundamental difference between optimists and pessimists and between capitalists and socialists.

I grew up with the space program. I remember being in school when John Glenn was first launched into earth orbit. In school, they rolled in closed-circuit TVs so we could watch. This was history.

And now it is history.

I always despised the arguments that went: People are starving in America and we're putting men on the moon?

And that's the crux of the whole thing. When you're hungry or broke, you can pull yourself in, minimze your footprint, make yourself as tiny as possible and just barely survive, fingers crossed that something or someone will rescue you. No hope, no future, just crawl along.

Or, you can take all you've got and "invest" it in some way that expands your opportunities. In the US 150 years ago, people packed everything they had into the farm wagon and headed West. Or take your last $50 to buy a lawn mower to start a business, or bake cookies for sale, or take out an ad to promote whatever talents and skills you have. It ain't much, but at least you're moving forward and things will get better. At the very least, you're creating and employing opportunity.

You could say that the Comrade was following this last course when he begged and borrowed $800 BILLION in 2009 and "invested" it in pork barrel projects. The only thing is, he took that $800 BILLION from the profit of productive people and now they're stuck with having to pay it off, with interest. And... guess what? It did not inspire any growth. It wasn't intended to generate profit, so it was only "consumed" and not "employed." It was wasted. Nothin' left now but the deficit.

Adding insult to injury, the Comrade has laid on the regulations -- especially when he couldn't get a less ideologic -- or should we say more realistic -- congress to hog-tie business the way he wanted it to.

Let's see, the Comrade wiped out something like $500 million a year in lease royalties and eliminated abut 20,000 jobs with the shut down of Gulf oil production. There's a good idea. Not to mention what the impact has been on fuel supplies and prices.

Anybody buying those toy electric cars from Government Motors? Though I did hear today that Chrysler has paid back its bail-out money. Maybe... who knows? Those guys know how to cook the books.

Just waiting to see what the results will be from the government's fiddling even more with the financial industry with its massive new bureau and thousands of new regulations being implemented to "fix" the financial markets.

Like Fannie and Freddie fixed the housing market?

Like the Comrade fixed energy independence?

You just try baking cookies in your kitchen and selling them somewhere. No. FDA will be on your ass, probably local meddlers as well. You make $10 cutting a lawn, and about half should go to taxes -- unless you pull a Geithner and just opt out of the IRS system.

The thing is, the Comrade's socialist policies and marxist ideology is downward-looking. It all requires that we consumer less, spend less, build less, invest less, grow less, because we are forced, by law, to give more to government incompetence and boondoggles. Whatever "excess" or profits anyone might manage to squirrel away for their their own growth is seized by the IRS and thrown into the hole of public consumption -- socialized medicine, rail systems no one wants, compensating unions for the pensions they won't have because their leadership spent all their dues taking democrats to dinner.

And the result is subsistence -- you pull in, stop spending, stop growing, start looking at the ground instead of looking up into the unknown and reaching for it. You won't spend. You have no faith in the future, or no foreseeable future at all.

That's why they call it "depression."

So it's really only fitting that the Space Program ended. For one thing, the Comrade and those who voted for him aren't worthy of it.

But on the other hand, I've heard NASA had degenerated into some huge bureaucratic morass. And a couple private companies are continuing space research on a for-profit basis. So we do have hope for this and it will have a future.

Save the Republic.

Soulmates: Casey & the Comrade

2011-07-18T04:45:00.000-05:00

Had an extended power outage due to some kind of storm called a "deroche," as oppsed to "Derocher," which was a different Chicago phenomenon. Anyway, it was a very powerful straight-line wind that knocked down trees and power lines. No electricity for a week. So I got a little taste of what life will be like when the EPA gets done with us.

So listened to my Walkman, which is the only device I had that was working, and listened to quite a few news and talk shows -- all of them about 1.) Casey Anthony and; 2.) the debt ceiling stand-off. Two issues that really have a lot in common.

First of all, consider Casey Anthony, the young unmarried mother in Florida who apparently killed her little girl somehow and got away with it. Casey was 19 years old when she got pregnant. She never told anyone she was pregnant. When she was seven months pregnant, a relative asked if Casey was pregnant. Casey's mother, Cindy, supposedly a nurse, said, "No. She's just retaining water." Lots and lots of water. Then later, "No, not pregnant. She has a tumor." Casey herself wouldn't admit to being pregnant.

Imagine her surprise, then, when Caylee was born. Or maybe the family just found the little girl under a cabbage leaf. Who knows? Casey doesn't seem to know who the father is. Of course, no baby, no father, either, right?

So maybe in Casey's own befuddled imagination, when her baby, Caylee, at three years old, disappeared, Casey perhaps believed she was merely awakening from some kind of disturbing dream. "Oh, Caylee's gone? Well, she was never really here in the first place."

So naturally, Casey didn't report the baby missing for more than a month. Then she told police investigators several pointless lies about the baby's whereabouts. Pointless lies because the police, of course, checked them out. I mean, did Casey really think people would accept her fairy tales above the facts of reality?

Starting to see what makes Casey so much like the Comrade? Two peas in a pod, no? Narcissists in arms, strewing lies as they go like rose petals.

Actually, it seems Casey drove the baby's body, wrapped in duct tape and several garbage bags -- around in the back of her car for a couple days under the Florida summer sun, until the scent of decaying flesh became overwhelming. Then Casey dumped the body in a swamp, where it was not discovered for another five months or so -- by that time nothing more than skeletal remains.

To date, no one knows exactly how Caylee died, although the coroner noted wryly, "Usually when we see duct tape and garbage bags, it's not a natural death."

But, according to Casey, she had nothing to do with this. It was someone else's fault. In fact, Casey several times made up people to hold responsible for the baby's disappearance, like "Zanny the Nanny," who Casey said held her down and kidnapped Baby Caylee. There was no Zanny the Nanny, unless, as one investigator hired by the Anthony family suggested, Zanny the Nany was Casey-speak for "Xanny-the-nanny." Like, Xanex is a tranquillizer that Casey may/may not have used more than once to shut the kid up so Casey could party unhampered by any adult responsibilities.

Casey lied to everyone about graduating from high school -- right up to Commencement, no one knew she'd flunked out. She did have a job for a short time, until she just stopped showing up when she was pregnant. Apparently she never officially resigned, though her employer took her off the payroll.

Three years after she left her job, she told the police that she still had that job, even brought them to the job site, where she finally admitted, "I really don't work here anymore."

But surrounded by press during the six months of her baby's disappearance, Casey did consider maybe going on the Howard Stern radio show, and pondered that maybe Howard would ask about her boobs. She does like being in the spotlight. And apparently all she has going for her is her boobs. She certainly doesn't seem to have much inside her head.

So what has this got to do with the debt ceiling thing?

We hear from the Comrade and the merry marxists that they never had anything to do with the national debt and/or deficit. The democrats were apparently all helping elderly people cross busy streets when the Evil George W (twirling his mustachios) went on some mad rampage and busted the economy.

The democrats are blameless. Like Casey Anthony.

Now the dems want to tax the rich to make up a 44% shortfall between national income and national outgo. This amounts to trillions of dollars.

Tell me, does any private, tax-paying citizen in the USA, including Bill Gates and George Soros, actually have even ONE lousy little trillion dollars? So if you take ALL their money, it wouldn't make much of a dent in the national debt. What it will accomplish -- what it has acoomplished so far at corporations like GE -- is to send US industry and capital overseas. Somehow this doesn't look to me like a useful way to raise revenue the same way something like, I don't know, "growing the economy" might raise revenue. But that's just my own opinion.

In fact, the whole "tax the rich" suggestion is entirely irrelevant to the debt ceiling problem. It's the Comrade telling lies and leading people on a time-wasting and non-productive goose chase. Like Casey and the police. The Comrade clinging to his fondest delusion -- that of class warfare.

Hey, fool, where you from? We've never had class warfare in America. Rather, we've done everything possible to ensure the fluidity and accessibility of all people to all classes -- and people can and have moved up the ladder of success as well as down. Believe me. I've seen social classes "on the hoof" in Europe, and we don't have them here. Not even union bosses qualify, not even "fat cats." I mean, the executives at Enron were prosecuted, weren't they? Bernie Madoff is in Attica or someplace, isn't he? If these fat cats constituted a "class," their conduct would not be questioned.

But now the democrats somehow feel it's entirely the responsibility of the Republicans to bail out their debt-riddled asses. The Republicans have come up with several plans -- all rejected by the democrats, and one or two rejected even by Republicans.

And the truth is, the USA can meet its debt obligations to bondholders and pay off Social Security and other "essential" obligations -- but to do so would require cutting things like grants for studying shrimp on treadmills -- deemed "essential" by the Comrade and pals -- or the useless and destructive EPA, which the Comrade uses to convey his diktats when he can't get the legislation he wants from congress.

Let's face it, the Comrade won't cut. He's just postponing the impending disaster until he's certain it will be an irredeemable disaster, the last nail in the coffin of free market capitalism. Like, he proposed cutting $4 TRILLION over the next 10 years or so -- but refuses to say exactly what he'll cut. Certainly not his "Beast" limo and million-dollar vacations. Certainly not Obamacare -- socialized medicine -- which will surely bankrup the nation completely.

I suspect one day in mid-September, someone will get a nasty whiff of the rotting corpse of the US economy in the luggage compartment of Air Force One. But will the Comrade be held accountable for it? Surely not. They "meant well," which in their particular ethical fantasyland is the equivalent of producing positive results.

The Comrade lives in some adolescent dream world like Casey Anthony. The way the Comrade sees it, the Republicans will somehow fix everything for him so he'll get re-elected -- or at least he'll be able to blame the Republicans if the economy continues to fail. And perhaps in his second term, he'll be crowned King of the World. Kind of like Casey fantasizing about Howard Stern teasing her about her boobs.

I suppose it could happen, I mean the Republicans hammering out a solution that would get the Comrade re-elected. After all, wasn't it Newt Gingrich and the Republican majority in the 1990s that got Can't-keep-it-zipped Bill Clinton re-elected? Left on his own gluttonous and self-destructive course, Clinton would have bankrupted the USA even while the Comrade was still voting "present" in the Illinois State Assembly.

I mean, Casey Anthony was acquitted and is now free to begin a career in the porn industry, which I understand has extended her several lucrative offers. I'm sure lots of perverts would pay to see her boobs. And her tattoo.

Similarly, I'm sure the Comrade will be able to scounge up some votes from unemployed union members in 2012. But acquitted? I mean, re-elected? I doubt it.

American citizens know better than that.

Save the Republic.

Presidential approval hits new low

2011-07-11T03:04:00.001-05:00

Some interesting poll results from Rasmussen Reports on Sunday. Rasmussen has a daily (I believe) "Presidential Tracking Poll," and the numbers for Sunday, July 10, hit the lowest they've ever been. For example:

21% Strongly Approve of the Comrade
40% Strongly Disapprove of the Comrade
72% Favor Free Market economics over whatever it is the Comrade is pushing
55% Believe spending cuts will help the economy
54% Believe tax increases will hurt the economy

The Comrade has called for, apparently, a whole bunch of meetings with congressional leaders to discuss the economy and figure out a budget. The Comrade favors a plan that supposedly cuts spending by $4 TRILLION over 10 to 12 years, but also raises taxes. (Question, if you cut spending so severely, why raise taxes? There should be plenty of money to go around.) Republicans, lead by John Boehner, Speaker of the House, prefer a plan that cuts $2 TRILLION in spending over the next couple years with no increase in taxes.

On Saturday, Boehner walked out of a meeting at the White House, reportedly in the belief that it's useless to whip a dead horse (the Comrade and merry marxists). They supposedly had a big meeting on Sunday as well, which lasted a little over one hour, just long enough to schedule another meeting for Monday. And the Republicans didn't change their position or talk to the press.

The whole problem is the debt ceiling, dontcha know. Apparently the USA is going to run out of money on August 2, and we have something like a $29 BILLION interest payment due that day. Yet the government can't borrow any more money unless and until Congress authorizes it.

So Congress, in effect, is cutting up the Comrade's credit card. Or trying to.

The Comrade whines that babies will die and youth will not be educated if he can't borrow any more money. And though the plan he favors supposedly cuts $4 TRILLION -- I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. It's scheduled to unfold over a decade, and by that time, no one will even remember this whole debacle, and the socialist-leaning in DC will be running up even bigger debt. Like socialized medicine is rearing its ugly head just a couple years down the road -- after the Comrade leaves office, and probably the country, too, if he wants to get health care.

Meanwhile, the cartoon (networks, Huffington Post, et. al.) media paints Boehner, McConnell and Eric Cantor -- who are all particpating in the so-called "high-level" talks, as being overly influenced by "extreme rightists," that is, the Tea Party. In other words, the great mass of people who elected them.

And the Comrade is threatening to shut down the National Weather Bureau and default on Social Security payments if the Republicans don't let him raise taxes. Or maybe fall on the floor, kicking and holding his breath until he turns blue. That will show us!

Go ahead, Comrade, but I suggest you station some Marines around the White House. As I said, you ain't fooling nobody, dude. We're on to you. He says he's going for a "balanced" approach. But we all know where his head is at. To him, "balance" is him sitting on the high end of the teeter-totter. But the rest of us are holding him up from the other end... he forgets that part.

So I started out with Rasmussen, and I'll end with a quote from his book, In Search of Self-Governance. He notes, "The gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century." And: "The American people don't want to be governed from the left, the right, or the center. They want to govern themselves."

Stand pat, Boehner, McConnell, and Cantor.

Save the Republic.

Tax the rich? I get it now

2011-07-09T00:03:00.000-05:00

I've been having a hard time understanding the Comrade's "Tax the rich" mantra. Why? Why tax the rich? If you took away all the money the rich have, it wouldn't cover the national debt. Does the Comrade just have this knee-jerk, superstitious marxist hatred for the rich? Why is he so heavily on the rich?

Well I think I just figured it out. And stupid me, it's so bloody obvious: taxing the rich cripples the free market economy by limiting how much the rich have to invest in private enterprise. And you know what? It's exactly this point that explains the dems' insistance on "Tax the rich."

You see, many of the rich are pretty astute business people. They create wealth. They create jobs. They look for promising investments. They operate beyond the control of the feds. They aren't dependent on food stamps, social security or welfare checks.

And so far, the Comrade's socialist projects haven't attracted many dollars from the rich. Apparently they don't see much hope for electric cars and windmills, socialized medicine or anything like that. They aren't willing to bust open their wallets and buy into an economy that's headed in the wrong direction. I mean, why throw good money after bad? The "bad" being what the rich have lost so far when the stock market tanks, when GM busts out, when solar power is not much more than a toy only the EPA could love.

So tax the rich, right? A tax is a law that takes your money. No matter how you dress it up -- calling it a "fair share" or "civic duty" or any of that crap, a tax is a seizure of your private property.

So if the rich won't play socialist football with the Comrade, he tries to marshall his forces -- including congress -- against them to march in and simply sezie their wealth.

Then he take the money -- and anything else they might produce in the future -- and pours it into unionizing the free labor force, into more and more regulations against domestic energy production, into stamping out private health insurance and all of the other stupid shit social engineering projects the Comrade has launched.

All the resources of the rich become part of the federal government's power base. It's a tool for more central control, for a centrally-controlled economy. After all, that's worked so well in Europe, hasn't it?

But see, the Comrade's got to get the rich to play. And they won't. So tax them. Threaten them with fines and incarceration if they won't play.

How vile and disgusting is this idiot in the White House? How dictatorial and authoritarian. How did this monster ever get elected?

Well, we've only got another couple years to try to tolerate this crap and boot this creep out of office.

In the meanwhile it's very important to NOT tax the rich. Not as part of a compromise on the debt ceiling or anything like that. DO NOT LET THIS SON OF A BITCH CONSOLIDATE ANY MORE POWER IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It's very, very serious threat to individual liberty.

Save the Republic.

Save $8B worth of ugly economic fat - eliminate the US EPA

2011-07-08T00:37:00.000-05:00

Well, the EPA is still at it, sitting up all night dreaming up ways to destroy human life in the United States. I was just at its Web site, looking to see what its total budget is. And I gotta say -- they're coming down real hard on American Indians with a bunch of proposed programs to further harrass and interfere with their lives. Don't know why. Maybe the EPA is hoping to exhume and mummify the Indian in that one commercial, where a tear very slowly rolled down his face. Iron Eyes Cody? He seemed so noble, didn't he?

But no... more likely the EPA just wants all Americans to live in hogans made from tree bark, burn buffalo chips for fuel, and eat whatever roots we can find in the wild... along with the semi-rotted carcasses of animals we don't kill and just trip over in the ancient forests.

Sound like a plan? Apparently it makes a whole lot of sense to the tree-huggers at the EPA. The EPA continues to "crack down" on coal production. FYI, 47% of all electricity in the USA is generated by coal. So make it expensive and/or unavailable -- like Gulf or ANWR oil -- and you can collapse the US economy even before Comrade Osama is kicked out of office next year.

Simultaneously, the Comrade is doing closed door deals with congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle to try to find some kind of "compromise" on the debt ceiling. Why closed door? Does Comrade Osama think that we, the American public, will not find out what kind of slimy dirty deals he's cutting? We live with this b.s. every day, dudes. No secrets. We pay for all your crap, remember? We get the bill. And we're beginning to review pretty closely, too.

Whatever happened to democracy in America? Huh, Comrade? Think we don't notice? Think you're somehow smarter than us? You're dealing with a very wily population -- wily, shrewd, innovative, very cunning. You can't out-fox us. You know the old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." We're on to you now.

After the last two hell years, there is not one damn thing you can do to get yourself re-elected. No one with any braims listens to the networks anymore.

But back to the debt celing thing, appropos of the US EPA.

Let's face it. The EPA has outlived its usefulness. For one thing, the USA is pretty vast, and the geography, economies, social organization varies widely across the country. It isn't really possible to devise regulations that are useful and appropriate for the whole nation. As demonstrated by the EPA's shortsighted and destructuve policies to date.

Far as I know, every state has an EPA. Let the states take care of their own smog, logging, and strip mining issues. The feds have no useful role to play and apparently they don't really bother about getting any real information about what they're doing. They have some utopian view where we're all standing on a hilltop, holding hands and kowtowing to owls and such.

And I did find out about the EPA's budget -- or at least as much of it as they're willing to report. It was $10.3 billion in 2010, and they requested $8.7 billion for this year. And only God knows what they actually spent.

So let's elminate the EPA. If they're bullying Indians now, obviously they've exhausted their interest in clean air and water -- and clean air and water is better handled locally, anyway. And if we get rid of the EPA, think of it -- maybe we could actually resume domestic production of the fuel we need to run the USA -- use our own resources instead of fiddling with the messy politics of the Middle East and Central America and wasting mucho bucks to terrorize 6th graders with doomsday scenarios about the fate of "endangered" insects.

So... save at least $8 billion and free up our own natural resouces... all in one little move... shutting down the EPA.

Simple. And it will have much more positive impacts than taxing the jet fuel used in private planes used by millionaires. By the way, Comrade, did you run that one by Pazzo Pelosi?

Save the Republic.

Utopia is not an option

2011-07-06T14:39:00.001-05:00

Going back to Aristotle and Plato, there are basically two ways to look at philosophy. And yeah, philosophy is a bore, right? Except that human beings run on philosophy, whether we each are aware of it or not. Your philosophy determines what decisions you make. It's pretty basic and pretty simple.

So let's start with Plato and the Allegory of the Cave. Basically, Plato painted this picture of a bunch of people sitting around doing shadow puppets on a cave wall. You know, a light casting shadows of the shapes you make on the wall. Plato said these vague shadows were kind of what humankind could grasp of "perfection." Perfection itself was from heaven or Mt. Olympus or someplace and being human, we could never completely perceive it or understand it. We could only kind of grope around in the semi-dark and hope to approximate perfection with our little shadow puppets.

Aristotle didn't have much patience for all that nonsense. He said look at reality as your base and draw your ideas and abstractions from that. Basically he invented science. I don't know what you might consider to be Aristotle's concept of "perfection." Maybe something that worked the way it was supposed to. I mean, every flower is perfect, isn't it?

So from these very different kinds of foundations, two different kinds of philosophies have grown. Most people I know believe in an odd mixture of both.

The difference is the material and the spiritual, the secular and the sacred, etc.

So we end up with some philosophers contriving these very elaborate mental structures and visions of a perfect (Utopian) society and all.

And then we have real life.

You can identify a Utopian society very easily. They are usually predicated by, "If everyone would just... be a little less selfish... take care of their kids... buy electric cars... join a labor union... give up ice cream," and so on.

You know what? Not everyone is going to do it. So if you insist on implementing any type of Utopian society -- like a marxist or communist society -- you quickly learn that it's necessary to "break eggs to make an omelet," Josef Stalin's poignant observation. He never hesitated to break as many eggs as he himself, with his vision of Utopia, believed was necessary. This was millions of "eggs," all the dissenters and suspected dissenters that he could round up and either murder or send to Siberia.

Then you have governments built on the idea of, "Just exactly what is absolutely smallest bit of government control we need to do to get along peacefully without getting in each other's way?" This is based on the notion that you will never get complete agreement or conformity on anything. That different people will value different things and make different choices. So the question becomes not how to get everyone to be the same, but how to support everyone's efforts to be individual.

Which do you prefer?

The Comrade follows the Platonian model. He knows what's right and good for everyone. He has this certain vision of perfection and he's going to tax us all up the wazoo -- or worse -- until we bend to his will.

Or we can vote him out of office and go back to being free under the U.S. Consititution -- the one document in human history that embodies the human race's best effort to all get along without getting in each other's way.

Enough for now.

Save the Republic.

Job Creation: Capitalism vs. Socialism

2011-07-05T10:51:00.000-05:00

Apparently some statistics at the Comrade's recovery.com Web site that says of the "millions" of jobs "saved or created" via the stimulus package, each of them cost something like $278,000.00.

But you can bet that none of those jobs paid that much. And how many of those jobs are ongoing, actual positions that last longer six months or a year or so?

See in the private sector under capitalism or free enterprise, a business owner creates a job if and when that new position will actually generate more revenue. You hire another sales person, another production person, another administrative staff to support efficiency. You "make money" off that added job.

In the government sector under socialism, you appropriate funds from someone who earned it and give that money to someone else, whether they bring in additional revenue or not.

And stimulus didn't work? Stimulus has actually dumped the US economy into the toilet?

Are you surprised?

All for now.

Save the Republic.

"Hope and change" or ...

2011-07-04T17:35:00.000-05:00

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

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet.

Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging.

And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation?

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free -- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending -- if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.

Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

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

~ Patrick Henry

Save the Republic

Comrade: "I told congress to kick the can down the road, but the Republicans refuse."

2011-06-29T12:49:00.000-05:00

The Comrade really sucks at press conferences. If he doesn't have a teleprompter, he's really not a very astute speaker. He's boring as he talks, gropes for platitudes and for escape hatches so that he can remain blameless. He's an idiot. A failed president. Befuddled, helpless, and generally useless. He thinks Joe Biden has a point. Stupid.

In a press conference this morning, he blamed Congress for failing to pass a budget. He doesn't understand why he should get involved. Ain't his problem.

Doesn't matter that he's (at least) titular head of the dem party. He hasn't got anything to do with the budget -- or the economy, for that matter. That remains George Bush's fault.

However, the Comrade does have a few suggestions. Like change the tax code. Not a bad idea, except for the way he wants to do it -- which includes eliminating things like tax credits on mortgage interest and taking away corporate tax breaks for the oil and gas industry.

And this last... the oil and gas industry don't get any special breaks. They don't get any subsidies.

All the Comrade and the buttheads on the dem side of the aisle want to do, really, is jack up the price of oil & gas-generated electricity so high that wind and solar power look competitive, which they aren't.

The fact is, wind and solar power cost about twice what oil and gas power costs. And that's in term of development, or building generation plants, as well as cost to consumer-- what you see on your monthly bill.

Do you want to pay twice as much for electricity? Is that going to spur the economy and create more jobs?

Exactly how far is your head up your butt, Comrade? He's showing multiple signs of assholism, the mental illness that relentlessly attacks people who spend a lot of time inside the Beltway. But the Comrade seems to suffer from "early onset" assholism. He probably picked it up in Chicago. And that isn't likely to change, but will only get worse as the 2012 election nears.

Go ahead, Comrade, keep up with the stupid and irrelevant and irresponsible, I might add, commentary. See if that gets you re-elected.

And, by the way, not a very good dodge on the Boeing-socialist labor conflict, either. Though he did manage to take about 15 minutes to say absolutely nothing. Don't want to offend the SEIU. Don't want that Purple Tide throwing garbage on the White House lawn, do we?

Save the Republic.

Georgie don't know much about history

2011-06-29T00:30:00.000-05:00

Watching the news today, where Li'l Georgie Stephanopoulos tried to trash Michele Bachmann for claiming that the Founding Fathers "worked tirelessly" to end slavery. Bachmann offered John Quincy Adams as an anti-slavery type... Actually her initial claim was correct.

Among the people at the Continental Congresses and the meeting in Philly where they wrote the Declaration of Independence, MOST of them regarded breaking away from England as the perfect opportunity to also end slavery. At the time, slavery was widely regarded as a hideous moral evil. Thomas Jefferson blamed the British for bringing it to the colonies, and even wrote that into the Declaration of Independence, though I believe it was struck out in revision.

George Washington was very much against slavery and freed all of his slaves upon his death. Jefferson wanted to, but he was so deep in debt, as he fell ill, his creditors began wheeling around Monticello like so-many vultures. Those slaves TJ didn't free before his death were taken up as payment for what he owed out.

And if you actually read the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, states: "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

This clause actually abolished the importation of slaves into the colonies as of 1808. The British were doing something similar, so this was kind of in keeping with the international situation.

And interesting to note that it was the delegates from South Carolina and Delaware who most strenuously objected to the abolition of slavery -- to the point that they weren't going to join in any rebellion that did away with slavery. South Carolina because its economy depended upon slave labor; Delaware because a large part of its economy was involved in the slave trade.

Take a look at the historical context for this. Many of the northern colonies were founded by religious groups -- Puritans, Calvinists, Quakers, Catholics in Maryland. The most influential of the southern colonies were based on land grants from the Queen/King of England -- like Elizabeth I gave Sir Walter Raleigh what is now much of Virginia and just about all of North Carolina.

These land grants were given out as payment for services rendedered, more or less. They were intended for money-making plantations -- like the "Sugar Islands" in Caribbean, for example. Also because such a grant to Raleigh gave Elizabeth a toehold in North America pretty much within shooting range of the Spanish in Florida. See, it goes way back...

So the northern colonies -- cold land, difficult to cultivate -- were to a pretty impressive degree populated by people who sort of generally didn't like slavery because it was morally wrong. In the south, they needed labor.

And there were white slaves -- indentures -- as well as black slaves. The Colonie of Virginia was the first to intitute a "Slave Code" differentiating white indentures from black slaves, and claiming that while whites should/could free themselves, blacks would always be slaves. "Blacks" were defined as people with a black mother, please note. The father could be any color. Black women slaves often were regarded as a sort of convenience for white masters -- but any resulting kids would have no birthright, no claims to any estates, etc. See how that works?

The northern colonies -- most of them -- were outlawing slavery even before the Revolution, on moral grounds. But the South was a different story.

At the time of the Revolution, the cash crops of the southern colonies were tobacco, hemp, rice, and indigo. Don't see any cotton? Cotton was nice but too damn hard to cultivate. The bolls from the plants are full of tiny seeds. By the time the slaves carded or picked out all those seeds, the selling price for cotton fiber made it non-economical.

Then the cotton gin was invented -- at almost the same time the U.S. Constitution was being written. Over the next 20 years, with the price of cotton very accessible, and cotton itself a very attractive alternative to wool and silk, the demand for cotton went through the roof.

So now slavery wasn't so terribly immoral anymore in the South. Cotton was (and still is) difficult to cultivate -- it take certain soil and sucks all the nutrients out of it. It has to be carefully hoed and constantly tended. Even before the boll weevil hit the U.S., cotton was prey for whole variety of destructuve bugs. In short, growing cotton -- even after the gin -- was a labor-intensive proposition.

And slavery became... not so bad. I mean, the slaves were learning "civilization" working from dawn to dusk, living in dirt-floor shacks, and denied their traditions, right? So went the harangue from southern pulpits, from southern agriculturists, yada-yada-yada. By God, the slave owners were positively ennobled by keeping slaves. Right? Noblesse oblige.

So, yes, the Founding Fathers were probably majority against slavery. They sort of pointed the nation in that direction. But then came the rise of King Cotton. And did I say cotton wrecked the soil? It did. And the planters knew it, but rather than replenish the soil, or leave it fallow for a couple seasons to "rest," they continued to overwork it until it became pretty much non-productive and then they moved .... west -- into Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc. And started a profitbable agribuiness in sugar as well.

Meanwhile, the ol' Yankees up north just got more and more dead set against slavery. The Quakers not only gave it up and abolished it in Pennsylvania, but starting preaching to southern planters about the evil of their ways, passing out pamphlets and all...

And the rest is history, as they say. Jefferson gave up any efforts at even promoting abolition. And so did just about anyone else. Slavery became deeply entrenched in the southern states, an embedded feature of society and the whole culture. The rich planters learned they could treat "poor white trash" (and yes, that was how they referred to them, even then), like servants, yet maintain the status quo by reminding these guys that, yeah, they might be trash, but at least they were a step above the slaves.

Then we enter into the long, drawn out, bitter, violent and eventually near-terminal run-up to the Civil War.

And yes, the Founding Fathers started it all, and even predicted civil war or something like unless/until the issue of slavery was dealt with.

The Republican Party was founded on anti-slavery. When Abe Lincoln was elected as the first Republican president -- that was all the slave states needed to know. South Carolina officially seceded about six weeks after the election and months before Lincoln was inaugurated.

I could go on. But this is enough, I think. Georgie just don't know much about history, and clearly less than Michele Bachmann does.

Save the Republic.

Blago guilty for doing it "The Chicago Way"

2011-06-27T15:00:00.000-05:00

To tell you the truth, I suspected that Rod Blagojovich, former governor of Illinois, would be found "not guilty" in his second trial for what? bribery, extortion, trying to sell the Comrade's senate seat to the highest bidder, etc. etc.

He was "not guilty" on all but one charge in the first trial, and would have had to serve a maximum of five years for that.

Today, after his second trial, and after testifying -- something he didn't do first time around -- and yammering on and on in his own charming style for days and days, the jury decided he was guilty and lied about almost everything. Out of 21 charges, he was found guilty on 18, not guilty on one, and on two, the jury was deadlocked. Blago could serve something like 300 years. But I doubt he will.

Interesting that Blago's defense has ALWAYS been, "That's the way you do politics in Illinois." Especially in Chicago. For example, as governor, Blago never spent much time in the state capitol, Springfield. He had an office in Chicago and/or did business out of his home -- in a neighborhood not far from where I lived for about five years. But see, Blago knew where the action was: Chicago, not Springfield.

He was pretty well hooked up with the old dem machine, too. His wife is the daughter of Dick Mell, who I believe was an alderman or something at one time, among other things. The Mell family is kinda like the Daleys in terms of being one of the little political dynasties in Chicago. They're all pretty much a bunch of crooks, but they also make the laws and run the courts, so they usually don't get prosecuted.

It took a federal investigation to arrest and prosecute Blago -- done by people from "outside" more or less.

And I have absolutely no doubt that Blago was only behaving the way he'd learned to behave from his mentors in the dem political machine. He seemed to favor "pay-to-play," which means, "Give me a big enough bribe, and I'll let you make a bid for that project." Or, in regards to the Comrade's senate seat, "This is f**king golden!" The chance of a lifetime to request some monumental pay-off -- either in money or political favors.

He made the comment while, apparently, drunk with power and basking in the glory of having a whole U.S. Senate seat under his tiny thumb.

Blago really isn't that bright. He's clever. He's a good talker. He has the charm of a mischievous kid. His whole demeanor being, "You don't want to hold me accountable. I'm just too damn cute."

The "charm" didn't work this time. He blabbered on and on and on in this second trial, and probably hung himself. That's the way we do it in Chicago.

I can picture all these white-faced and trembling appartchiks at some bar downtown, under the shadow of the rusting Picasso, sipping whiskey and wondering how the hell it happened that the jury wasn't properly bought. Someone may lose their job at Streets & Sanitation for that slip-up. Or maybe they were just as tired of Blago's tell-all bullshit as everyone else is. It makes the city look bad. (That, of course, is a joke.)

I have no doubt that all of Blago's diatribes and efforts at exposing the "culture of corruption" in Illinois and Chicago -- all of his contentions and machinations, lies and distortions -- every word is strangely true. You grab, push, bribe, extort, lie, cheat, stab your friends in the back -- that's the Chicago Way.

We see it in operation every day in the White House. Just interesting that a jury in Chicago didn't like it.

Save the Republic.

USA as the Comrade's sandbox?

2011-06-23T14:11:00.000-05:00

The Comrade just announced that he's releasing millions of gallons of oil from the USA's reserves.

Hey, asshole, have you noticed, the price is GOING DOWN?

Like, where the hell where you last month this time? Kissing ass in Europe? Taking advantage of all those travel perks before your sorry ass hits the pavement in January, 2013?

Clearly this stupid butthead took a look at the polls and now hopes he can increase his popularity by bleeding away our emergency resources. Doesn't matter if/when the population takes the hits, but mess with the Comrade's poll numbers and it's no holds barred, full speed ahead. He will destroy this nation and leech out any remaining resources -- if he thinks he can hold on to his little job.

'Course he has created such an economic environment in the USA, and developed such a piss-poor reputation for himself, that if he loses the White House, the asshole probably will never work again. Oh, maybe a few speaking engagements in front of the labor unions or at Van Jones' little commie enclaves here and there. But otherwise....

This is very dangerous. But the Comrade is such a monumental blockhead, apparently he doesn't recognize the difference between the nation's interests and his own personal campaign "emergencies."

And here's another tactic. A key congressional committee has been discussing for months how to design a budget. The key problem with the economy being, clearly, NOT A PROBLEM OF INCOME, BUT OF SPENDING, even Dickhead Durbin, who really is a brainless hack, was calling for spending cuts yesterday.

But today, the dems in the committee announced they will not negotiate any agreement without tax increases. So Eric Cantor and other Republicans got up and walked out. Please note, the current Republican House majority was elected primarily to cut spending and taxes. The dems don't have any kind of mandate like that at all. They're just little mindless puppets dancing on the end of strings held by the Comrade and Pelosi.

Some certified moron named Don Gerstein was just on Fox babbling about how the Republicans are "playing politics." So this is the latest gimmick, enhancing the Saul Alinsky play book. It's not the dems fucking up the nation with their games of Capture the Flag, it's the Republicans. Yeah sure. Does anyone seriously believe this addle-brained dimwit?

And so the dems are back to "Tax the rich." Which just isn't going to fly, fools.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, stood up and begged the Comrade to display some leadership in all this. Nice try, Mitch, but not a chance.

The Comrade doesn't make decisions. He couldn't even decide how to vote on zoning laws and highway reconstruction projects when he was in Illinois, and it's interesting to note his judgment hasn't got any better since he moved into the White House.

The thing is, as the Comrade sees it, you've got to avoid being accountable for ANYTHING. Let someone else do. If it's successful, rush up to the cameras and get your face all over to claim the credit. If it fails -- well he was playing golf. He didn't have a damn thing to do with it. It's all George Bush's fault.

This person, the Comrade, is such a damn fool it almost boggles the mind. And his manipulation and game-playing is so ham-handed and obvious it makes you wonder where his ol' boys David Fluff and Axelrod are. 'Course, apparently Axelrod knew when it time to cut and run.

So go ahead, you silly dem (like dumb) clowns -- trash the USA as you flail around desperately hoping to find a following. Everything the dems are doing right now only makes things worse. And don't think we, the electorate, don't know it. You forget, we have to pay for all your silly bullshit, while you just sit on your fat asses inside the Beltway and spin your nasty schemes.

I'm just hoping the USA can survive long enough to get these blockheads out of office. We just can't afford this bullshit.

Anything in all of this could inspire a charge of impeachment? Look real hard, please, you constitutional lawyers.

Save the Republic.

The Republican field -- no more of "the same old same old"

2011-06-22T16:15:00.000-05:00

Well, you know I'd heard so much about the heretofore invisible John Huntsman as a likely Republican candidate for president in 2012 that I looked him up. Read up on his record, sat through a couple speeches and comments of him on YouTube. He's very polished.

A commentator on Fox once said, "If you had a box marked 'President of the United States' and opened it up, you'd probably pull out Mitt Romney." Same can be said for Huntsman. They've read Emily Post.

But now I just saw some woman on Cavuto who raised $1.2 million or something like that for Huntsman last night. She used to be a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton, and just drooled vague very honeyed things about Huntsman.

He's supposed to be "taking the high road" in his campaign, or focusing on indefinite an lumpy dream-things like "I just love America," without articulating any particulars on any issues.

I'm sorry. That's how the Comrade was elected. Just not good enough.

And the fact that a Clintonite is backing Huntsman just sort of sends chills up my spine. I mean, the same way photos of Auschwitz does, not in the Chris Mathews sense.

For my money, right now, I like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry.

This might change, of course, and Perry's not even in the race. But I don't' want some mealy-mouthed slippery fish pronouncing platitudes and vague promises. No, I'm looking for a candidate with some balls. And Bachmann's got more than probably 85% of the men currently in office anywhere in the USA.

I just find it strange that Huntsman seems to have the Imprimatur of the democrats. The democrtas WANT to run the Comrade against Huntsman, probably because Huntsman isn't likely to call out the Comrade as a brainless idiot with nothing but failed policies behind him, spreading misery and despair everywhere he goes, destroying the one nation in the world that understands human freedom and has always defended it. Huntsman will just focus on some kind of pie-in-the-sky glory-to-come, and maybe rattle off some wonderful Mandarin proverbs to prove his point. And Republicans are supposed to embrace him?

I don't know, somehow that just doesn't work for me. I want to know what he's actually going to DO. I want to see him so outraged at the destruction of America that the veins stand out in his forehead. I want to see the bare knuckles, know what I mean?

Just sick of all the hope and change bullshit. And I don't really care about polite. Obviously.

Save the Republic.

But look at all the good he's done

2011-06-22T14:51:00.000-05:00

The Federal Reserve today issued a statement that the US economy looks like it's going into a "double-dip" recession -- or should that be "triple-dip?" I don't know. Since the Comrade's been in office, it's kinda hard to keep track of the economic disasters.

At any rate, the Fed apparently says we can look forward only to more unemployment because consumers just aren't buying anything, because -- due at least partly to the price of gasoline -- they don't have any money to spare. If they're working. And that's a big if.

And Nasty Controlling Bitch Katrina Sibelius head of God only knows what -- I mean, don't you think you'd have to be just a little psychopathic to take a job like hers? -- has decided that all of us Americans need further encouragement to migrate our high-fat, high-protein diets to high-carbs -- which make you very fat and flabby, to boot.

Take my word on this. I've spent my entire life on one or another diet, and the only thing that works is high-protein, reduced carbs, unless you're a some kind of maniacal jogger. I love vegetables, but they're all carbs. And when you only eat a few of them, they only make you hungry, as in "appetizer." This is a fact borne out by the experience of every human culture.

So anyway, given the above -- that things are getting worse on both the economic and bully fronts, I've decided to look for the silver lining. I mean, something good must have come from something the Comrade's done so far, right? I mean, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, right?

So let's see....

Well, he shut down Gulf oil production, refuses to open drilling in ANWR, and has made coal so expensive to produce, coal companies are beginning to shut their facilities. So that means electricity will soon cost even more than gasoline.

I guess that pretty much eliminates any value that might be had from electronic cars.And maybe by this time next year, us citizens will have to decide if we want to buy pasta or fund one more hour of electric light and refrigeration in our homes. I mean, to stretch our unemployment handouts.

Oh well, there's socialized medicine. This has already increased insurance premiums by more than 100% in some cases and in a recent survey by someone, something like 30% of small business owners said they'd have to stop offering insurance all together under Obamacare.

Socialized medicine also reduces payments to doctors and other health care professionals and to hospitals. So far, these producers have been able to "cost-shift" their losses to private insurance. Like, if Medicaid only pays 40% of what's owed, the doctor, hospitals, et. al,, will simply raise prices 60% for people with private insurane.

If there's no more private insurance, these health care producers more than likely will no longer see Medicare/Medicaid patients. Happened before. When Medicaid was instituted in Illinois, four or five hospitals in blighted areas of Chicago shut down. Not enough patients with private insurance in those areas to carry the costs for everyone.

On top of that, the Comrade and Sibelius also see fit to give their friends and donors exemptions from socialized medicine.

This reminds me, during the Civil War, a rebel general named Cleburne suggested drafting the slaves into the Confederate army and giving them their freedom in exchange for service. Confederate President Jeff Davis noted that he couldn't do that because it made it look like freedom from slavery was a value.

Yeah. Like freedom from socialized medicine is also an apparently highly-sought-after value. And you can only get that if you kiss the Comrade's ass and fill his campaign coffers.

Shame on you suck-ups!

So, moving on, we have the draw-down of forces in Iraq, for which we can thank George W, and greater emphasis on Afghanistan, which is an apparently "unwinnable" war because we're dealing with tribal shamans and goatherds there. Like do they care about bringing their nation into the 21st century or even the "world community." I doubt it.

And now we also get to fight in Libya -- which is really none of our damn business. Libya has lots of oil, which it sells mainly to Europe. Why can't Europe defend its own interests? Aw, shucks, they're all depressed and destitute because their socialist economies are collapsing? What a damn shame.

You'd think the Comrade would look at that hot mess as a "teachable moment," but he's such a rigid idealogue, his mind is so closed and narrow, he can't really fairly assess what's going on there. Its just beyond the scope of his capabilities. If he looks at the truth of that situation, he'd have to admit -- even to himself -- that he's deliberately destroying the USA. And his ego's too fragile to ponder that. He'd probably end up in a strait jacket at Walter Reed, decorating his rubber room like the inside of million-dollar limo or Air Force One.

So, yeah, as the 2012 election looms larger and larger, let's keep in mind all these wonderful things the Comrade has done. And continue asking yourself and others:

Are you better off now than you were four years ago?

Save the Republic.