Friday - May 04, 2012
Lemmings, Jokes, and the A-Team
Lemmings…
Jokes…
I love it when a good Cabinet comes together!
Posted by Christopher
on 05/04/2012 at 09:31 PM
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Fun-Stuff • Republicans •
• Comments (4)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Saturday - April 28, 2012
More Jus Than OJ
Oh Lord, here we go again. It seems that some folks think that Florida’s Senator Marco Rubio might be on the short list for Mitt Romney’s choice of Vice Presidental candidate. So naturally the LLL (Lunatic Loser Left) is trying to disqualify the guy, crowing that he isn’t eligible because he isn’t a Natural Born Citizen. Golly, didn’t we go through this crap TWICE with John McCain? And hasn’t the LLL and the MSM spent more than 3 years now lambasting those sicko Birthers on the Right for trying to make the same case against Obama, even when their claim may be far more valid? That’s why I dug up the “LLL” term, one that we used to use way back in the day when McAmnesty was running the first time around.
Ok, I live under a rock apparently. I was completely unaware that such a movement to discredit Marc Rubio existed. But GOP author, historian, and public speaker Michael Zak wasn’t, and he emailed me a link to his latest essay over at Human Events where he says Rubio is Natural Born, and urges the Republican party to get past such allegations and get behind this probable VP candidate. Unfortunately he uses the “Chester A. Arthur was president, so it’s Ok for Rubio too” approach, which any child can immediately see as the standard Mom pitch of “If all your friends jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge ...”. I’m not sure the debate over Arthur’s Natural Born-ness is over yet, and he was president over 125 years ago.
I have to disagree in part with Mr. Zak. We’ve exchanged several emails on the subject. Nice and cordial, as is our wont. No reason to be act like deranged Democrats. And reading his responses has caused me to look a bunch of things up, and to reform my opinion. That’s what healthy debate should be, right?
Marco Rubio’s parents came from Cuba. They did not become American Citizens until a few years after he was born. Marco was born in Miami. So, is he thus a Natural Born citizen, or even a citizen at all? That question does relate to the whole Birther thing, but more importantly it relates to the bigger Anchor Baby thing.
Zak feels that the language of the 14th Amendment grants instant citizenship to Marco on his birth. This is what lawyers call the Jus Soli viewpoint; being On The Soil is all that is necessary. [ as opposed to jus sanguinis, citizenship from the parents ] Being rather a Strict Constructionist myself, I countered that the 14th clearly does not say that at all, what with the “subject to jurisdiction” clause. I backed up that view with excerpts from the Congressional Record, which contain the explanation of the Senator who wrote the citizenship clause to the 14th Amendment when it was first being debated (lower half of center column) wherein he specifically says that this does not apply to foreigners who just happen to be here.
I could have linked to several Ann Coulter essays where she says pretty much the same thing:
The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
Zak’s response was that it didn’t matter so much what the Senator meant, the opinions of everyone else mattered more. This left me a bit non-plussed, sitting there with my head tilted to one side the way your dog looks at you when he can’t figure out what on earth you’re doing, making sounds like Scooby-Doo. This is the scene from Rodney Dangerfield’s movie Back to School where the professor flunks him for his paper on Kurt Vonnegut’s Welcome to the Monkey House, which he had hired Kurt Vonnegut to write, and tells him “whoever wrote this paper doesn’t know the first thing about Vonnegut.” Harrooo?
So I took a different approach. Rubio’s parents came from Cuba, and he was born here in 1971. I had heard his parents only became citizens 4 years after he was born. Cuba, 1971: it was natural to assume his folks were refugees.
Back in 1885 the Supreme Court reached a decision in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case, which effectively (and rather retroactively) granted citizenship at birth to that person based on the 14th Amendment AND his parent’s status of Permanent Resident, their current employment, and their having a permanent place to live (domicile). Ah ha.
The Cuban Refugee Act of 1966 gave permanent resident status to all Cuban exiles. [ except later for Elián González ] So if his folks had escaped the Bearded One, then Wong Kim Ark ought to apply, right? Well yes, but then again, no. Rubio’s parents were not exiles in the normal sense. Even though Marco has spoken about the plight of the Cubanos in Florida, and shown solidarity with their movement, it turns out that - to his own surprise! - he isn’t really one of them. His parents came over here in 1956, before Castro came to power. So while he grew up with them, he wasn’t legally part of that group, even though he thought he was. But his parents were legal residents, permanent ones. Heck, his grandfather, an emigre, used to go back and forth between Cuba and Florida all the time, and only got in trouble for it once. Things were a bit different in those days! So the refugee angle doesn’t work.
But the permanent resident angle does. I’m pretty sure. Someone with better knowledge of the world of the Green Card please correct me, but I’m fairly sure that the child of permanent legal residents becomes an American citizen at birth. By pure jus soli and by only a small stretching of jus sanguinis, because of the domicile aspect of Wong Kim Ark. And that makes Marc Rubio a properly Natural Born citizen. And Michael Zak has arrived at the right conclusion by almost the right path. Good enough for me, and I hope he accepts my Wong refinement as right. [ ooh, I just missed that oh so tempting little landmine!! 
]
On the other hand, if I am wrong about the children born here of legal residents, then Marco Rubio should be passed by for the VP slot. Find someone else. We had enough of this mess with the fallacy of the John McCain situation, twice. And - justified or not, and I lean to the justified side - the Birther situation with Obama has been 100 times as divisive. I’d really like to get past that with our next crop of leaders. What would really help would be a clear statement from the Supremes on just who is and who ain’t Natural Born. The 14th Amendment has already suffered more than any other Amendment, being nearly gutted by Slaughter House Cases amongst others. While I would dearly love to see it revert - at least in this citizenship clause aspect - to it’s original intent, I’d be happy with a clear interpretation of any kind at this point from them there black robes. And failing that, I’d want to see the people running for the nation’s highest offices to be 3rd, 4th, or greater generation Americans, just so we don’t have to fall down in this puddle every 4 years. I think we can all agree on that one. Wet shoes are such a bother. [ ooh, I sidestepped another one!! ]
Posted by Drew458
on 04/28/2012 at 12:03 PM
Filed Under: • Illegal-Aliens and Immigration • Politics • Republicans •
• Comments (4)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Wednesday - April 25, 2012
Obama Lite, Already
Already? Couldn’t the Heir Presumptive at least pretend to be a Conservative for a week? If not huff and puff and shoot dragon fire and brimstone, couldn’t he at least blow a little smoke up our ass until the primaries are over?
At this point even Elmer Fudd would be better than Obama, and many of the Republican voters have been willing to overlook much of Romney’s shortcomings with the belief that despite Mitt’s inability to be conservative at his core, at least the guy is trying to pull us back from the brink Obama has been pushing us towards at break-neck speed. . .
And then Romney reveals that the anti-Romney folks may have a point by providing his own “Tax the Rich” plan.
Gee wonderful. This is where I stick in that I’m a firm believer in equality under the law, and therefore in favor of a flat tax? 12% for everybody, no deductions. 5% once the federal government gets cut down to it’s proper size, and a complete lack of deficit spending. And if you can’t wean the nation immediately from Progressive taxation, then set up a 4 tiered structure starting at 8%. Earn $100, owe the feds $8. Nobody rides for free. 8%, 12%, 18%, 27%. Something like that, but no escaping the bottom tier. And the whole thing flattens out in 15 years.
Not that this will happen in my lifetime. Or ever. No, the Old Boys Club said it was Mitt’s TURN, and that was decided before any candidates even announced. And that’s exactly how it will turn out, and exactly NOTHING WILL CHANGE in government. It may merely slow down, just a tiny bit, for a couple of years.
Romney is not naturally conservative. The strong conservative showing in the primaries have nudged him a little to the right, and that is good. But folks have been hoping, for the sake of turning things around, that Romney isn’t just a Republican version of Barry Obama. But when at that fundraiser Romney talked about eliminating deductions for the rich, and creating special plans for the rich, women, and Hispanics, it makes one realize that identity politics and class warfare lives and breathes in Romney’s skull. He has bought into the liberal lies, and he’s trying to appease those that have somehow made him feel guilty about being rich.
...
The liberal left says we must soak the rich, but that is a communist concept. A progressive tax rate is the second plank of the ten planks of communism in the Communist Manifesto. Why would we want to hammer on the producers at the time of economic difficulties, anyway? Have you ever gotten a job from a poor person? Is it anyone other than the wealthy that produces goods and grows our economy? How insane is it to go after those that makes our economy work?
...
Romney has bought the liberal lie hook, line and sinker, and I think he is embarrassed over his wealth.
...
Personally, he should tell them to take the guilt and shove it! Mitt Romney needs to shed the liberal skin he’s got clinging to him and be happy about being rich. Say to us, “Yep, I am successful, and you can be too!” His wealth was not ill-gotten. He’s not a criminal. Therefore, his wealth is the result of what America is all about.
...
Equal protection under the law, right? So why do the democrats believe the rich should not be equally protected, but that they should somehow be targeted, and made to pay? Liberty does not work that way.
No kidding. Preaching to the choir in an empty church. Nobody who doesn’t already believe this will read this essay or hear the message. An essential truth, but a waste of breath. The first comment is nearly as long as the essay, and lays out - again, for the millionth time - just how bent the tax rates are, but doesn’t mention the Leona Helmsley Clause: taxes are for suckers. The truly rich, smart, successful, or perhaps merely dishonest, don’t pay anywhere near what the official rate is. They have deductions, exemptions, tax credits for things the rest of us can’t even conceive of, plus teams of accountants to hide the money in all sorts of special nooks and crannies all over the world. Look at the Obamas ... in the news just a couple of weeks ago ... “earning” nearly $900,000 and paying 20% when that income bracket is already way up at the top rate level (38%?); he’s paying only about half of his “fair share”.
Flat rate, no exemptions. And the same rate for businesses. It’s your choice to own a home, and it’s your choice to send your kid to college. It’s also your choice to elect fiscally responsible representatives who understand both how to balance a checkbook and what good value means. A little understanding of the Constitution wouldn’t hurt either.
Posted by Drew458
on 04/25/2012 at 07:40 AM
Filed Under: • Republicans •
• Comments (0)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Tuesday - March 06, 2012
look at me, look at me, look at me now!
sometimes all a post needs is a headline. I’d put in links, but come on, who really cares?
The guy just couldn’t stand to not be in the center of the limelight for even one lousy day. I can hear his drivel on the TV downstairs, going on about the military, the mortgage situation, the international situation, oil, Israel, Iran, blah blah blah.
Posted by Drew458
on 03/06/2012 at 01:25 PM
Filed Under: • Obama, The One • Republicans •
• Comments (1)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Wednesday - February 01, 2012
myths about republicans and can we actually win come november.
I happen to catch Janet Daley on the radio last night for the first time. Hope it won’t the last cos she can wipe the floor with any lib. they put against her.
Oh how I wish she could take the time to answer each of her critics on this article. Of course, there may an honest point or two made by those who oppose her comments here. I’m not posting the comments cos while interesting, they are also anger inducing. So you read them if you want to, at the link.
Three myths about the Republican primary contestExplaining the more arcane procedures of the American presidential primary system to my British friends is difficult enough. The distinction between a caucus and a primary ballot, and the various forms of the latter – those that are open to everyone in the state, as opposed to those that are restricted to registered voters of a particular party; those that are winner-takes-all as opposed to those in which the delegates are distributed in proportion to the votes won, etc - can take up half a lunch time by itself. But once these technical matters have been mastered, there are more serious political misconceptions that must be dispelled. So in the interests of international understanding, let me take on three prevailing confusions about the current Republican primary season.
Myth 1:
There is so much acrimony and bile being expended between the candidates that irrevocable harm is likely to be done to all of them in the eyes of the electorate. The mudslinging – all the negative ads and personal malice – will leave a permanently unsavoury impression of the party, whoever wins in the end.
Refutation: no, it won’t. Primary contests are always bloody and bitter. In 2008, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton gouged lumps out of one another for months. She accused him of being hopelessly callow and inexperienced – and worse, her husband unforgivably dismissed Obama’s campaign as being similar to Jesse Jackson’s ie just another futile attempt from an over-ambitious black politician to leapfrog over the legitimate candidate. Obama in turn, implied that Mrs Clinton had no legitimate political credentials at all: that she seemed to think that having lived in the White House as a First Lady was sufficient qualification to be president. All of this nastiness was forgotten once Obama got the nomination whereupon the entire Democratic machine got behind him and propelled him to victory. What the melodramatic vitriol had served to do was make the Democrats seem like the centre of the political universe, providing a setting in which its rising star could establish a national reputation.Myth 2:
The longer this ugly race goes on, the worse it will be for the Republicans who will end up looking like vindictive children, and damage each other so much that they will be crippled when it comes to the actual election. It would be better if everybody except the obvious front-runner pulled out now.
Refutation: The longer the race goes on, the more the mettle and personal courage of the candidates will be tested. There is always something of the OK Corral shoot-out in American elections: behaving like a gentleman is fine for a president once he is in office but a candidate needs to be able to remain standing in a long and bruising fight to prove his fitness. And, as I noted above, the longer the national drama is centred on the Republicans, the longer voters will pay attention to them. As soon as the nomination is seen to be a done deal, the public gaze will move away.
Myth 3:
Gingrich is now a dead duck. Defeat in Florida has finished him.
Refutation: This is likely to be true but not necessarily so. In 2008, Hillary’s campaign came back from the dead repeatedly. She was written off – only to recover again – so frequently that it became the received wisdom that Obama had failed “to seal the deal” until virtually the last moment. The outcome which seems in retrospect to have been inevitable was very much touch-and-go during the primaries – and the dramatic suspense of that uncertainty almost certainly helped the Democrats in the presidential election.
Moral of the story? American politics is very, very different from our own. US voters are not so repulsed by “unpleasantness” as the British, and they really, really do not like being second-guessed by the media.
Hope I don’t P.O. my friends here but .........
I am not feeling very confident about the election. People who voted for Obama and are now unhappy, are not necessarily Republican friendly. But they might vote for him again if only because of ill feelings about our side. And to be frank, while I like Gingrich, and I think he’s far and away smarter then any of his opponents, I don’t think he can win. And that leaves who as a choice?
When I was in Ca. a few months ago, I watched one of the debates and was thoroughly put off by the bad behavior of Santorum. If some didn’t spot it, and I was surprised hardly anything was made of it, then some just weren’t listening and watching as closely as they might have.
I’m not crazy about Mitt either and I heard him singing on the radio last night. Good grief how embarrassing. I thought he appeared desperate. Some may not see it that way. I don’t feel too good about this. The prospect of another term for Obama is genuinely a very scary thought. So I suppose I’ll either have to pass on voting, which is not an option, or vote for whoever wins the Republican nomination, which is the only option open to me that I can see. And it’s far too late to run for office myself and anyway, even I wouldn’t vote for me. Depressing thought here. We may not have anyone on our side who will be able to defeat Obama.
I am not feeling very well at that thought. In fact, I am increasingly sick over it.
Posted by peiper
on 02/01/2012 at 11:08 AM
Filed Under: • Politics • Republicans • USA •
• Comments (6)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Saturday - January 21, 2012
Homerun For Newt
Delivers knockout victory speech!
UPDATE: Here it is! And here it is:
Says the choice - between him and Obama - is one between an America that stands for freedom/opportunity/independence and one that’s a Saul Alinksy socialism that bows to Saudi princes. (actually he first says “the centerpiece of this campaign is American exceptionalism versus the radicalism of Saul Alinksi”, and then it gets better)
HORRY CLAP. Newt didn’t just throw down the glove, he picked it up and smacked the crap outta the left time after time after time, in plain straight up talk, and called the far left and their policies a destructive anti-American bunch of pinkos, and the media their running dogs. He hit just about every single Tea Party point, and then a dozen more dear to Conservative hearts. Then he smacked Obama upside the head with a dead fish over the Keystone XL pipeline and our nation’s debt to China. By gosh, gumbo, and by Hillary’s hoary beard, hit the news sites and/or YouTube and listen to that speech. He’s on fire!
Not the victory speech, but a good talk, half an hour, from Newt:
Posted by Drew458
on 01/21/2012 at 10:00 PM
Filed Under: • News-Briefs • Republicans •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Hero of the Week
The only thing he could have done to make it better would have been to say “Don’t be like Obama and try to blame your mistakes on someone else.”
Never retreat, never surrender. Now let the smack-down commence.
Posted by Drew458
on 01/21/2012 at 12:47 PM
Filed Under: • Media-Bias • Republicans •
• Comments (2)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Thursday - January 19, 2012
The Shrinking Field
Rick Perry has dropped out of the Republican Primary race. He is going to throw his support to Newt Gingrich, news coverage at 11am.
Cain, Bachmann, Huntsman, and now Perry. Gone.
The decision comes after the Texas governor, who once led the field of GOP hopefuls, endured disappointing finishes in the leadoff Iowa and New Hampshire contests. While he is polling only in single digits in South Carolina, his decision to withdraw could end up giving a boost to one of his opponents should his supporters gravitate toward a particular candidate.
Crivens. At this rate, there won’t be any choice but Romney by the time the primary bandwagon gets to my state. Grrrrr.
Posted by Drew458
on 01/19/2012 at 11:00 AM
Filed Under: • News-Briefs • Republicans •
• Comments (4)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Friday - December 16, 2011
The Great GOP Debate
No. Sorry Drew. It’s only the last one before the Iowa caucus. There will be more to come, though the field will narrow as the primaries transpire and the losers leave the stage.
I caught most of the GOP candidate’s debate last night. This one was pretty good. Bryan Preston at PJ Tattler has a pretty good recap, with only a small amount of bias coming through. Go hence and read the play by play, then skim the comments with the awareness that the Paulbots are still out there doing what they do best.
I agree with him that Michelle Bachmann came off poorly against Newt Gingrich during their abortion dust-up. Not so much in what she said, but in how she said it. I know she feels frustrated that the polls and the media have sidelined her; she even came out last night with a “don’t ignore me, I am a viable candidate” kind of remark ... but she came off as rather shrewish during that part. A male candidate would have seemed just as bad had he delivered the same words in the same manner. Sometimes it’s how you say things that matters just as much as what you say.
If I had to put it my opinion of the debate and the whole darn campaign in a nutshell, I’d agree most with comment #29 by Philly Guy, which I’ll trim down to the core (I favor Rick Perry more than he does though):
2) Michelle Bachmann has no accomplishments in government at all. ... She irritates me.
3) John Huntsman is better than Ambien.
4) Rick Santorum seems to say a lot of very good things, has a variety of accomplishments and connects the dots very well. He also seems like he’s still in college.
5) After Rick Perry is done, there won’t be any federal government left any more. Let’s go back and undo Obamacare, have a vigorous and strong US foreign policy, cut taxes and rebuild America’s values. I’m not a big fan of his tack towards the religious aspect of his life.
6) Newt Gingrich is a conundrum. He would destroy Obama in a debate. Easily the most articulate thinker with the biggest ideas in the race. He also steps in it a lot.
7) Mitt Romney comes off as a competent manager ... He is also an amazing flip-flopper – on the same level as Obama. ... Despite that, he would do well in a debate with Obama. The guy has staying power.
My Big Picture take at this point? It’s going to be Romney. And that shows you just how important it is to keep the pressure on your Congressweasels and Senators, and to push and push and push for the Tea Party philosophy. The President leads, but it’s the Legislature that gets things done. And while I personally wouldn’t mind waking up tomorrow and learning that the federal budget has been cut by 80%, that more than half the federal government has been laid off, and that a quarter million micromanaging laws have been thrown out, that level and rate of change is only going to happen at the end of a gun barrel, which I would really like to avoid. Big steps are going to have to be taken, but they are going to have to be taken one at a time. So Perry’s views are correct, but we can’t do it all in one fell swoop. That would be a revolution, and who wants the period of anarchy that always goes with one of those? What we need are some honest politicians who can work out honest incremental but significant solutions, not beholden to special interest groups and without the braying rhetoric of the frantic and the unhinged. Leadership in favor of cost cutting and limited government sure would help. Let’s take some big steps to build up speed to make sure we’re running in the right direction before just leaping off the cliff. Yeah, good luck with that one Drew.
And once again I’ll put out my advice to the GOP: STFU already about abortion. I don’t like it, they don’t like it. Fine. Accepted. Face the music of that debate: it’s over, it’s been over, that train left the station 40 years ago, the tracks were ripped up, and Toll Brothers built a subdivision where the station used to be. Make a blanket statement about it, a layer of varnish on this plank in your platform, then refer every last media shill to go and read it, and refuse to make any other statement or comment:
Got your box of rocks ready to throw at my glass house? Great! Have at it; comments are open.
Posted by Drew458
on 12/16/2011 at 09:40 AM
Filed Under: • Republicans •
• Comments (3)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Thursday - September 15, 2011
Oh Shut Up Already
Funny how the whole world knows that all of today’s youth couches nearly everything they say in derisive sarcasm, thinking that they’re being superlatively ironic. Yet such acts are taken at face value when it serves Chairman Oh’s cause.
“Audience at Tea Party Debate Cheers Leaving Uninsured To Die” By Rachel Rose Hartman, Political Reporter | The Ticket – Tue, Sep 13, 2011If you’re uninsured and on the brink of death, that’s apparently a laughing matter to some audience members at last night’s tea party Republican presidential debate.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a doctor, was asked a hypothetical question by CNN host Wolf Blitzer about how society should respond if a healthy 30-year-old man who decided against buying health insurance suddenly goes into a coma and requires intensive care for six months. Paul--a fierce limited-government advocate-- said it shouldn’t be the government’s responsibility. “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risks,” Paul said and was drowned out by audience applause as he added, “this whole idea that you have to prepare to take care of everybody …”
“Are you saying that society should just let him die?” Blitzer pressed Paul. And that’s when the audience got involved.
Several loud cheers of “yeah!” followed by laughter could be heard in the Expo Hall at the Florida State Fairgrounds in response to Blitzer’s question.
Paul disagreed with the audience on that front. “No,” he responded, noting he practiced medicine before Medicaid when churches took care of medical costs--a comment that drew wide audience applause. “We never turned anybody away from the hospital.”
Conservative Andrew Sullivan writing for The Daily Beast’s The Dish Tuesday noted that the United States obligates society to save someone in an emergency room. “America, moreover, has a law on the books that makes it a crime not to treat and try to save a human being who walks into an emergency room. So we have already made that collective decision and if the GOP wants to revisit it, they can,” Sullivan wrote.
Sullivan also decried the audience reaction, writing: “Maybe a tragedy like the death of a feckless twentysomething is inevitable if we are to restrain healthcare costs. But it is still a tragedy. It is not something a decent person cheers.”
Wow, what a weak-ass Appeal To Authority. And since when is leftist swisher Andrew Sullivan a Conservative? He’s about as conservative as Charles Johnson at LGF is these days: NOT.
Talk about media bias. This is just as twisted in it’s own projectionist way as Obama’s jack booted AttackWatch site, his latest creepy, authoritarian nutjob Fight the Smears, rat out your neighbors, CCCP inspired horseshit campaign, which is of course directly linked to a sub page that spreads smears against the Right. Hey, isn’t that ironic???
What a turd. Who, Obama or Hartman? Yes.
I can’t be bothered to fisk the pants off of this bit of garbage and it’s author, so I’ll hand the task over to the pros(e). Here’s Ann:
Liberals are on their high horses about a single audience member at CNN’s Republican debate whom they believe wanted a hypothetical man without health insurance in a hypothetical coma to die—hypothetically.
(Democrats want people in comas to die only when they are not hypothetical but real, like Terri Schiavo.)
I concur with the audience member who shouted “Yes!” This has nothing to do with any actual people in comas—the people Democrats want to kill—it’s just a big “screw you” to the moderator.
Following up on Brian Williams’ showboating questions at last week’s Republican debate about the execution of the innocent and starving children with distended stomachs, this week, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer launched his question about an imaginary comatose man without health insurance.
As Rep. Ron Paul began to discuss the pitfalls of collectivism, Blitzer kept interrupting him, concluding with, “But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?”
That’s when an audience member yelled out “Yes!”—allowing liberals to luxuriate in self-righteousness, the likes of which we have not seen since the Jersey Girls demanded a Homeland Security Department be created because their husbands died.
Normal people are sick of liberals’ emotional stories that play to soccer moms, but always seem to pave the way for disastrous social policies that benefit only left-wing special-interest groups.
Someone ought to calculate the carnage liberals foisted on this country beginning in the late-’60s with their “compassionate” approach to rapists and serial killers like McDuff—consequences that liberals were fully immunized from in their safe, ivory tower neighborhoods. Let’s ask Michael Dukakis to run the numbers.
Regarding Williams’ baby seal question about starving children in Texas with distended stomachs: No one is starving in this country. The only bloated stomach problem affecting America’s poor is a medical condition known as “obesity.”
According to the General Accounting Office, in 2008, the federal government had 18 separate food programs that spent $62.5 billion each year to feed the poor. And that was before the Food Stamp President assumed office.
I would venture to guess that the only children in America who have ever suffered from kwashiorkor, the condition that causes distended bellies, were victims of child abuse—at the hands of the sort of monsters Williams is so opposed to executing.
People aren’t buying the left’s emotional appeals about imaginary victims anymore. The audience member’s “Yes!” was a way of laughing in the moderators’ faces for trying to pull that crap.
PS - What is wrong with the GOP and their bringing in uber-leftists to moderate their debates? Wolf Blitzer? Oh puh-lease. Wassamatter, they couldn’t get Dan Rather? Was there no translator available for Fidel Castro? Michael Moore out of town? Crivens.
Posted by Drew458
on 09/15/2011 at 11:26 AM
Filed Under: • Media-Bias • Republicans •
• Comments (1)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Wednesday - June 15, 2011
Our Brave Republicans In The Senate
Yup, that’s Change We Can Believe In, alright.
Nor do I really give a rat’s ass whether the (R) votes to kill this amendment were from “farm states”. Phooey. ALL STATES ARE FARM STATES; it’s just that some states have more farms than others do. And the time for special interest pork is over. Vote for the good of the nation and to get us out of the financial depression we’re in, or earn my enmity.
Republicans voting to kill this amendment, along with the majority of Democrats:
Blunt (R-MO)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kirk (R-IL)
Moran (R-KS)
Portman (R-OH)
Roberts (R-KS)
Thune (R-SD)
Wicker (R-MS)
Looks like a pretty solid chunk of “flyover country” doesn’t it? The red meat of the Red States. Proving once again that the Republican party is just as much in the bag to the special interest groups and the pork barrel BS as the Democrats are.
Democrats and Independents who might have America’s best interests at heart, along with the majority of the Republicans:
Cantwell (D-WA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Manchin (D-WV)
Pryor (D-AR)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
The ethanol industry yesterday praised the U.S. Senate for voting down an amendment by Senator Coburn (R-OK) to repeal ethanol tax incentives, including the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (VEETC) or the “blenders’ credit” by a vote of 59 to 40.
American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) Executive Director Brian Jennings said the vote sends the “right message” to the American public.
“This vote is a major victory for the biofuels industry and American consumers and a setback for those clinging to our status-quo dependence on oil. It proves political stunts aimed at ethanol won’t be tolerated in the U.S. Senate. Now we can focus on continuing our work with the White House and both chambers of Congress to support meaningful and responsible legislation to reform ethanol policy, such as S. 1185, the Ethanol Reform and Deficit Reduction Act, introduced by Senators Thune, Klobuchar, and many others this week,” Jennings said.
Jennings added that ethanol supporters should also be praised for the work that they did in defeating Senator Coburn’s amendment.
“ACE grassroots members from around the nation took the initiative to make phone calls and send emails to Senate offices, making a persuasive case that this vote was important and could make a difference at the pump and in the pocketbook. We thank our members for their efforts and we urge them to stay involved as these discussions continue to develop in the months to come,” Jennings said.
Jeff Broin, Chairman and CEO of the world’s largest ethanol producer, POET, said the ethanol tax credit had been responsible for building America’s “most successful renewable fuel into 10 percent of our gasoline supply”.
The Senate refused Tuesday to end $6 billion in ethanol subsidies, defeating an amendment by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., that crystallized a larger ideological split within the GOP over whether removing tax subsidies is a tax increase or is a legitimate way to trim the $1.5 trillion federal deficit.
The amendment became a test vote in this summer’s struggle to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. Republicans insist a debt-limit increase be accompanied by trillions of dollars in spending cuts and no tax increases. Democrats say tax increases must be part of the equation.
...
More than 40 percent of the U.S. corn crop now goes to ethanol, an alcohol fuel made from corn and added by law to gasoline. The fuel puts upward pressure on corn prices, harming dairy, livestock and chicken farmers who feed corn to their animals and face record $8-a-bushel corn because of flooding in the Mississippi Basin.Ethanol gets three levels of government support: a 45-cent-a-gallon tax credit paid to refiners set to expire this year; a 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that blocks cheaper and more energy-efficient, sugar-based ethanol imports; and a federal regulation that in effect required a 10 percent blend of ethanol into gasoline.
Seems to me I recall that even Al Gore said that this thing was a flop. And if Mr. Blinders can see that, and admits his support was mostly for political reasons, what excuse does anyone else have?
It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol. One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.
Glad to know that our elitist Betters in DC won’t listen to him either, and that they remain beholden to big bucks special interest groups. So we won’t be saving that piddling $6 billion in handouts any time soon.
Only in America do we pay farmers to grow food to burn to run our cars. If they can’t make ethanol from grass clippings and scrap plant waste, it’s worthless. And if they can’t make a distillation process that uses less energy than the ethanol that comes out, it’s asinine. And that’s where we are today. Worthless and asinine, just like our Senate.
PS - I didn’t have $15,000 in cash sitting around a year or so ago, so I wasn’t able to trade in my older economy car for a newer flexi-fuel economy car in that Cash For Clunkers program. My car gets about 10% less mpg on this 10% gasohol, or cornoline, or whatever they call the damn mix. I hate it.
Posted by Drew458
on 06/15/2011 at 04:36 PM
Filed Under: • Oil, Alternative Energy, and Gas Prices • Republicans •
• Comments (5)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Thursday - June 02, 2011
Demonic: New Coulter Book
“The idea for this country, contained in our founding documents, was revolutionary and brilliant, and it was about limited government, property rights, self-reliance, and self-determination - which makes it a conservative idea”
… when did Ann Coulter become the Angry Woman of the Right—and doesn’t she find this, well, infuriating? “Not at all”, she laughs. “What ‘angry’ means today is, ‘I don’t agree with you,’” she adds. “To avoid being called ‘angry,’ people on our side are always supposed to yield to the Left. Otherwise, we’re injuring them somehow.”
So what accounts for the gap between Coulter’s reputation for being cranky and reality? “It’s something the Left does very well,” she explains. “Getting people to deny what their own senses—their own eyes and ears—are telling them.” ...
The proverbial reasonable man might wonder if Coulter would be willing to reveal anything at all about her new book. She would indeed: “It’s called ’Demonic: How The Liberal Mob Is Endangering America,’ and it’s about how liberals act like a mob because they are a mob. Picking up where the brilliant 19th century social scientist Gustave Le Bon left off, I show how similar the Left is to a common street mob in the ways they think and behave.”
What examples can she cite of behaviors shared by both a street mob and the Left? “Groupthink—a reasoning disability to which Christians and conservatives are immune, by the way. An inclination to hold contradictory opinions. A habit of being swayed by images rather than by words and logic. A tendency to resort to violence to advance their cause. And, as I’ve said, a willingness to disbelieve their own senses.”
Asked for a recent example of this phenomena, Coulter cites the banking crisis: “Here’s how Obama described the economic collapse: ‘The Republicans drove the car into a ditch, and now they want us to give them the keys back.’ So instead of a carefully worded description of how the banking crisis unfolded, people remember Story Time when the car went into the ditch and John Boehner climbed out from behind the wheel, with maybe a cut on his forehead, and said, ‘Wha’ happened?’ The End.
“Now, if you explain to liberals that Fannie [Mae] and Freddie [Mac] and the Community Redevelopment Act encouraged banks to issue suicidal mortgages, and Wall Street intermingled those bad mortgages with good ones and sold them in bundles, and when the housing market collapsed, the whole economy tanked, they say, ‘OK, but what about the car and the ditch?’
“They also believe that since government intervention and Wall Street got us into this mess, what we need is for the government to step in again and give Wall Street more money. It’s textbook mob thinking.” ...
The high-water mark of mob behavior, she believes, was the French Revolution. “The American Revolution was a revolution of ideas,” she explains. “The idea of a constitutional, representative democracy, based on the consent of the governed, in the form of three competing branches, was revolutionary. The French Revolution—which hardly deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as the American Revolution!—was a protracted mob action, which mostly consisted of some French people mindlessly beheading other French people. The French Revolution was not inspired by some groundbreaking political manifesto like the Declaration of Independence. It was more like a street riot that got out of control and went on for years because they let it. As Napoleon said, if Louis XVI had stood up to that mob, even once, he would have won.”
So, in SAT test-question form, the French Revolution, with its wanton violence and primitive thinking, is to the liberal mentality as the American Revolution, with its emphasis on ideas and well-crafted arguments, is to the conservative mentality? “Exactly!” ...
Soon to be another NY Times best seller - almost guaranteed, and yet another Conservative book that the NY Times will never, ever review - absolutely guaranteed. Funny thing how Conservative books top the lists year after year, but liberal ones get remaindered all the time. Actually, it’s not that funny: Conservatives read, and amass libraries. Liberals watch TV and amass pent up feelings.
Find Coulter’s latest book in all the usual bookstores, or check your email; Townhall Magazine is giving away a copy with new subscriptions, and other right winger mags are sure to do the same.
Posted by Drew458
on 06/02/2011 at 08:24 AM
Filed Under: • Republicans •
• Comments (3)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Wednesday - April 13, 2011
How much will it be tomorrow?
“We’re going to cut $100 billion off the budget! That’s our Pledge To America!” Wasn’t that the hue and cry?
Then it was $60 billion.
Then we went through 2 solid weeks of shenanigans on the Hill, and they came away with $38.5 billion.
And today we learn that somebody was fapping the numbers, because the real bottom line is that they only actually cut $14.7 billion. And some of that money was for border security efforts.
The meat of the spending deal struck between the two parties late Friday night was revealed in a legislative omnibus released early Tuesday morning. The specifics show that finding nearly $40 billion in cuts during the 2011 fiscal year required clever accounting and, for the White House, a willingness to concede on rhetoric to find gains on substance.
For example, the final cuts in the deal are advertised as $38.5 billion less than was appropriated in 2010, but after removing rescissions, cuts to reserve funds, and reductions in mandatory spending programs, discretionary spending will be reduced only by $14.7 billion.
White House officials said throughout the process that the composition of the cuts was more important than the top-line number, and that including mandatory cuts allowed that top line to grow while limiting the immediate impact of the cuts.
The move also keeps the 2011 discretionary baseline slightly higher, a terrain advantage for the Democrats heading into the 2012 spending process.
Read it and weep. If Present is President without the ID, then it looks to me like John Boehner isn’t worth his “eh”.
“We’re going to overturn Obamacare.” Really? Really truly?
Health care reform, too, will be implemented, though now under the eyes of several Republican-imposed audits and studies. The deal does cut $2.5 billion, nearly half the funding, from an effort to set up health care co-ops that was opposed by the insurance industry, and eliminates another policy, opposed by both corporations and labor unions, that allowed individuals to use the funding from employer-provided health care benefits to shop for insurance on the individual market.
Good news, except that Obamacare was pretty much written by the insurance companies to being with. So defunding the part that they don’t like is just playing into their hands even more. And the second policy mentioned there takes away your freedom of choice. Of course the unions opposed that; they don’t want you to have any.
Wow. Such a victory. I fully expect that by this time tomorrow another look at the numbers will show that Bo-eh-ner actually agreed to a spending increase; he got X cuts in departments A, B, and C at the cost of 3X increases in departments O, F, U. Which is what it looks like the Obamunists did to him. Are we to expect another boo-hoo video Johnny boy?
The president also garnered an additional $700 million in spending for his competitive education funding program, “Race to The Top,” and though it includes new audits of the consumer protection agency created by the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul, it also raises funds to implement reforms at the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission.
Go read “Race to the Top” and see if they’re actually talking about anything speed related. Or even academic, since the winning states won’t have to ability to target even half the awarded funds. 50+% of them are pre-mandated to certain LEA (local education agencies). And will you ever be able to trust anything with the Dodd-Frank imprimatur on it? I won’t. This is starting to look more like a shellacking than a victory.
Posted by Drew458
on 04/13/2011 at 02:12 PM
Filed Under: • Republicans •
• Comments (3)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Sunday - January 09, 2011
anti usa self styled experts on the usa claim palin and tea party responsible for az shooting.jerks!
Good afternoon BMEWS.
Some interesting stuff. Hell, it’s all interesting to me.
First of all, I’m not going to post the story about the wanker who shot the congresswoman. I imagine by now you folks at home are seeing it all on TV over and over and over again. And the talking heads, and the victim photos. I also imagine there are now new calls for strict gun control.
So no. I’m not gonna post the article that’s in ALL the papers here. But I will post this line from the Mail on line.
Nation with a history of shocking gun massacres
The Tucson massacre is the latest in a series of shooting massacres in America.
That’s how they see us folks. Not all to be sure. Not all. But very many sad to say.
I had thought of just posting some of the comments readers are leaving on the Mail site. Changed my mind about that tho. Not I confess out of consideration for you. But out of selfish thinking on my part cos if I posted those damned comments here, it would mean I’d get frustrated and pissed off every time I had to come back or post something new and scroll and then see again. I have no idea where some people are getting facts and figures. One person claimed there were 30,000 deaths a year in the USA from the use of guns. When I wrote in and asked for a source for that figure, I got 20 red arrows for my trouble.
Here’s what I said.
May I please say that as an American (living here temporarily), it is not the business of foreigners to lecture us on our possession of weapons, which are mainly held for hunting, shooting sport and self defense. The last because the police can’t. As a former resident of Tucson I can assure readers that nobody anywhere in Az. can walk into a supermarket and buy a gun. The statement made by a supposed insider is absolutely false. Also please consider that many have guns illegally. And that’s true in the UK as well although the numbers are less because so is the population. Fact is, most Americans do not own guns. But let one deranged nut case like this commit such an outrageous act, and suddenly it’s the wild west. Well, it isn’t. And I’d like to know the source of those huge numbers of deaths by gun in the USA posted here. I question those numbers. But regardless, it is not the business of anyone else anyway. Not as long as we remain sovereign, unlike some.
- jd peiper, winchester. UK, 9/1/2011 10:28
Click to rate Rating: 20
Another poster said that the media in the USA were censored. So I asked for the source of the posters info.
That earned me 18 red arrows.
Well, as I said, I’m not posting their comments but here’s the link to the story. Scroll down and read the comments of the uninformed and mostly anti-American hand wringers and be prepared to get very pissed off. Maybe some of you will post comments of your own but be warned, they’re very nannyish and so really personal insulting remarks made to posters won’t get through.
Oh ... btw. They’re also calling for Sarah Palin’s head and The Tea Party (a terrorist organization says one) and the American right. They’re bringing up the fact that Palin had cross-hairs on states and people and so deduced from that, that she and the TP were encouraging what happened in AZ. These experts on America and American expressions don’t understand the term having someone or something in the cross-hairs, does not mean we are suggesting they be shot.
Not always anyway. Here’s the maddening link.
Posted by peiper
on 01/09/2011 at 08:57 AM
Filed Under: • Commies • Republicans • Sarah Palin • Stoopid-People • UK •
• Comments (7)
•
Trackbacks(0)
Permalink • Five Most Recent Trackbacks:
LAAR She Blows! Part One
(2 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Planes Ideas Blog
[...] CABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEB [...]
On: 07/12/11 01:57
The Tactical Cowboy
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Sights Service Blog
[...] E LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE [...]
On: 07/10/11 08:30
Nasty Dirty Money
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Money Reviews Blog
[...] ONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLES [...]
On: 06/17/11 08:31
Amazing aerial images taken by daring Allied pilots on secret missions during WW 2
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at Hookers and Booze
peiper over at Barking Moonbat EWS found some absolutely kickass aerial photos from WWII. I grabbed this one because I’m a big fan of the movie A Bridge Too Far.…
On: 11/23/09 04:14
Clear Thinking and Straight Talk
(1 total trackbacks)
Tracked at baldilocks
Let Them Fight or Bring Them Home Read all of it--and tell every American you know to do so. (Thanks to BMEWS) UPDATE: The author of the above blog is…
On: 10/02/09 09:29
DISCLAIMER
THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.
Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:
It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.
- Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
- Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
- Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
- Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere
THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.
Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner
Oh, and here's some kind of visitor flag counter thingy. Hey, all the cool blogs have one, so I should too. The Visitors Online thingy up at the top doesn't count anything, but it looks neat. It had better, since I paid actual money for it.
RSS 2.0 
Atom 
