According to a recent Fox News Poll.
In actual fact, this is probably about 30% low. Liberal media bias is entrenched in American society and has been for decades. The evidence is all around.Just look at some examples from recent history:
In both 2008 and 2012 the press was and is utterly disinterested in "who Barack Obama is". They had an obsession with GW Bush's college transcripts but didn't care about Barry's, Barry is an admitted heavy drug and alcohol abuser but there was no interest whatsoever in pursuing that while GW's past alcoholism and drunk driving arrest -- somehow "magically" discovered in the waning days of the 2000 campaign even though it had been public record for 20+ years -- was the talk of the 2000 campaign.
Likewise, there was no interest whatsoever in Barry's family and associations during his formative years -- no interest in his hippie mother, Communist, alcoholic father that abandoned him at an early age, the grandparents that raised him, the Communist that mentored him, the mad bomber that helped him launch his political career, the radical Palestinian Israel hater that watched his kids, the racist, hate-monger that married him and baptized his kids. At the very same time, they were doing a rectal exam of vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin -- her kids, her husband, her terms as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, her religion, her church, her parents, her daughter's pregnancy. Would that they could have been half as interested in the life and associations of the Democrat's presidential candidate as they were the Republican's vice presidential candidate. Perhaps the election would have a different outcome. Oh by the way, we just went through the "who is" thing with Paul Ryan. If there was any dirt on Ryan, we would have known by now and we'd still be talking about it.
A few more examples: The Middle East is practically on fire, China is conducting a massive military build-up and is planning on challenging Japan for islands in the South China Sea, Israel is fearing for its life under the threat of Iran getting the bomb, Syria is in meltdown and slaughtering thousands of its citizens weekly, our Southern border is being overrun and crime and violence are out of control. Oh and did you know that ICE agents are suing Janet Napolitano alleging that they are under orders NOT to do their job due to confusion over the dictatorial mandate the executive branch issued regarding "minor" illegal aliens? AND did you know there is a huge sexual harassment case involving one of Cousin Janet's top female deputy? These are just a very few examples. What is the media obsessed about this past week: Some stupid comment made by U.S. Senate candidate in Missouri. Of course, the first question at Obama's rare press conference last week wasn't about any real pressing issue: It was an invitation to tar and feather the Romney/Ryan ticket and every other Republican with Todd Akin's insensitive and stupid comments even though they all had rushed out days before to distance themselves from them.
Read more!
Sunday, August 26, 2012
2016 the Movie: A "Surprise at the Box Office"
By cracking the top ten and having the highest per-screen average of any movie in the top ten.
This is hardly a surprise if you were one of the ones warning people about Barack Hussein Obama four years ago when he was en route to his "hope and change" immaculation positioned like some kind of god between the Greek columns in Denver with his "soaring" rhetoric brought to us by the TelePrompter. But the simple fact of the matter is that, four years later, most Americans still don't know much about the president who promised to be "the most transparent in history" and they are flocking to the theater to see if they can find out more.
Most people have never read Barry's ghost-written blockbuster hit Dreams from My Father therefore they don't really know what the title means. Dinesh D'Souza spells it out in the trailer promoting the movie:
As anyone who has paid attention the last fours years knows, Barack Obama's dream is the dream of his father, not the dream of our Founding Fathers -- the dream that made this country the greatest on the face of the earth. Obama can keep the dream of his alcoholic, America-hating Communist father from Kenya. We'll keep ours if we vote Obama out of office in November. This movie is a must-see if you are on the fence in this the most important and pivotal presidential election in our lifetimes. If you are undecided when you go in, you can bet you won't be when you leave.
Read more!
This is hardly a surprise if you were one of the ones warning people about Barack Hussein Obama four years ago when he was en route to his "hope and change" immaculation positioned like some kind of god between the Greek columns in Denver with his "soaring" rhetoric brought to us by the TelePrompter. But the simple fact of the matter is that, four years later, most Americans still don't know much about the president who promised to be "the most transparent in history" and they are flocking to the theater to see if they can find out more.
Most people have never read Barry's ghost-written blockbuster hit Dreams from My Father therefore they don't really know what the title means. Dinesh D'Souza spells it out in the trailer promoting the movie:
As anyone who has paid attention the last fours years knows, Barack Obama's dream is the dream of his father, not the dream of our Founding Fathers -- the dream that made this country the greatest on the face of the earth. Obama can keep the dream of his alcoholic, America-hating Communist father from Kenya. We'll keep ours if we vote Obama out of office in November. This movie is a must-see if you are on the fence in this the most important and pivotal presidential election in our lifetimes. If you are undecided when you go in, you can bet you won't be when you leave.
Read more!
Neil Armstrong Dies
An American hero dies 43 years after his historic moon walk:
Back in the day when we set big goals for our country and brave Americans like Neil Armstrong helped realize them for all of us. Doing big things gave this country a sense of pride - we could do anything if we set out minds to it. Armstrong's legacy reminds us that big things are still possible in this country. But we must get our country back on the right track.
Read more!
Back in the day when we set big goals for our country and brave Americans like Neil Armstrong helped realize them for all of us. Doing big things gave this country a sense of pride - we could do anything if we set out minds to it. Armstrong's legacy reminds us that big things are still possible in this country. But we must get our country back on the right track.
Read more!
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Communist Party USA Endorses Obama for President
Does this surprise anyone? A group of communists endorsing the protege of one of one of their dear departed members. Frank Marshall Davis would be so proud of Barack Hussein Obama.
Read more!
Read more!
Consider This About Todd Akin
Todd Akin made a really stupid comment and apologized immediately. It is my personal opinion that anyone who shows such poor judgement doesn't have the judgement it takes to be a U.S. Senator (although, judgement is something that seems to be sorely lacking in the U.S. Senate these days).
Poor judgement, sexual misconduct and abuse of women (and male pages) are apparently a resume-builders for Democrat politicians. Remember just last week when the dumbest Vice President in American history told an audience of Blacks that Romney/Ryan wanted to put them in back in chains? This kind of stuff comes out of Joe Biden's mouth about every five minutes and no one says a peep.
Then consider this: Bill Clinton, third worst president in modern history. Considered the "elder statesman" of the Democratic Party, liked by everyone, keynote speaker at Barack's 2012 "just give me another chance, the Republicans are evil" convention:
Read more!
Poor judgement, sexual misconduct and abuse of women (and male pages) are apparently a resume-builders for Democrat politicians. Remember just last week when the dumbest Vice President in American history told an audience of Blacks that Romney/Ryan wanted to put them in back in chains? This kind of stuff comes out of Joe Biden's mouth about every five minutes and no one says a peep.
Then consider this: Bill Clinton, third worst president in modern history. Considered the "elder statesman" of the Democratic Party, liked by everyone, keynote speaker at Barack's 2012 "just give me another chance, the Republicans are evil" convention:
- Impeached, perjurer: Lost his law license for five years for admitting to lying to a federal judge during the Paula Jones case about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
- Cheated on his wife in the Oval Office with an intern half his age (but Hillary Clinton isn't one of those Loretta Lynn "stand by your man" wives unless of course it is politically expedient to do so).
- Was credibly accused by Kathleen Willey of groping her while she was an enthusiastic supporter and volunteer in the White House.
- Admitted to having an affair with Gennifer Flowers during the time he was governor of Arkansas and was also caught on tape promising her a position in Arkansas government.
- Paid Paula Jones $850,000 rather than fight allegations that he asked her to "kiss it" in a hotel room when he was Arkansas governor.
- Was credibly accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick.
Read more!
Friday, August 24, 2012
More Than Half Say They are Worse off Than in 2008
This little poll can't be good for the once and fallen messiah, Barack Hussein Obama. His campaign manager Jim Messina can spin it any way he wants, but when 56% of people in swing states say their situation sucks worse than in did in 2008, Obama's in BIG trouble.
Read more!
Don't be so smug about a "slight lead" Obamabot Zombies. Check back 32 years ago and I think you'll find that the second worst president in modern history supposedly had a BIG lead over Ronaldus Magnus about this time and that election was a blowout for Ronaldus Magnus. Granted, Democrats didn't have voter fraud down to as much of a science 30 years ago as they do today but that just means we just need to win by five percent more to make up for the early voting Republican ballots that are thrown away, illegal aliens registered to vote, "lost" votes, uncounted military ballots, New Black Panther Party voter intimidation, liberal special interest groups registering dogs and dead people to vote, vote buying in city slums and rural poverty towns etc and on and on.In USA TODAY/Gallup Poll nationwide and in the 12 top battleground states, most voters say the situation for them and their families hasn't improved over the past four years, the first time that has happened since Ronald Reagan famously posed the question in his debate with President Carter in 1980 — a contest Carter lost.Even so, President Obama, who in 2008 became the first African American elected president, maintains a slight lead over challenger Mitt Romney in the battleground states likely to decide the election, 47%-44%. That's better than his standing in the non-battleground states, where Romney leads 47%-45%.
Read more!
What's Happeneing to China's "Great" Infrastructure?
Remember this:
This is Big Brain Joe Biden telling a mayor's conference in Orlando on June 15, 2012 that China's infrastructure is better than ours.
Now check this out:
The headline in the New York Times reads
Read more!
This is Big Brain Joe Biden telling a mayor's conference in Orlando on June 15, 2012 that China's infrastructure is better than ours.
Now check this out:
The headline in the New York Times reads
"Collapse of New Bridge Underscores Worries About China Infrastructure"
Can you say no shit? Remember five years ago when this happened in St. Paul Minnesota? That bridge, which everyone now agrees was defective, was built in 1970 and collapsed in 2007. Care to guess the age of this 330-ft piece of China's infrastructure? Try nine months. I guess the Chinese build their bridges just like they build everything else: Cheap.
No thanks Joe, I think I'll take OUR infrastructure.
Read more!
Thursday, August 23, 2012
It's President Romney
Or such is the prediction of a prediction model that has correctly forecast the winner of the presidential race in the last eight presidential election cycles:
Read more!
University of Colorado political science professors have predicted the outcome of presidential elections since 1980, and have been right each time. They are forecasting Romney to win 52.9 percent of the popular vote compared with 47.1 for Obama, the Camera reported.
The professors, Kenneth Bickers and Michael Berry, conducted a state-by-state analysis using economic data. It shows that President Barack Obama will only win 218 votes in the electoral college. He needs 270 to be re-elected.
Read more!
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Barack Obama: The Six Trillion Dollar Man
The Six Million Dollar Man Steve Austin ain't got nothin' on the Democrat's favorite president and former messiah. Take a look at the national debt increase by president for the last 30 years:
> Ronald Reagan’s First Term – $656 billion increase
> Ronald Reagan’s Second Term – $1.036 trillion increase
> George H.W. Bush’s Term – $1.587 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton’s First Term – $1.122 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton’s Second Term – $418 billion increase
> George W. Bush’s First Term – $1.885 trillion increase
> George W. Bush’s Second Term – $3.014 trillion increase
> Barack Obama’s First 3.5 years -- $5.3 trillion
As you can see, NO president in the last 30 years has been a piker when it comes to piling on debt:
But no.
As Fox News Analyst Stephen Hayes pointed out, Obama, who has said at least twice in the past that it isn't wise to raise taxes in bad economic times, is now running for a second term on a platform of raising taxes in bad economic times. And not just on the "rich". He won't admit it, but he's actually raising taxes on everyone via the "Affordable Care" Act -- Obamacare -- increasing energy prices ("under my energy plan, the cost of energy will necessarily skyrocket", :"they can build a coal plant if they want to but it will bankrupt them" etc.), unreported inflation in food and energy prices and on and on.. In other words, Obama is basically telling us he will bankrupt the country and sink the economy given a second term.
Why will his plan bankrupt the economy? It's part of his "fundamental transformation" of a society that doesn't need "fundamental transformation", it needs fiscal and economic policies that are the exact opposite of Obama's. It needs the Reagan-era approach that brought us out of the true worst recession since the Great Depression -- the Carter Recession. This chart shows the difference between the Reagan and Obama approaches on unemployment 16 months into the Reagan recovery vs 16 months into the Obama "recovery":
Reagan's approach had unemployment dropping three percent. Obama's unemployment rate actually rose. This article explains clearly point by point how Reagan's approach worked and Obama's isn't working. In fact, this article shows how in every instance, tax cuts for all correspond with economic growth and prosperity for all. Too bad our socialist president is a lousy student of American economic history.
So the choice is clear: If you want higher debt, higher unemployment a weak recovery (at best) and life on the brink of economic collapse for your children and grandchildren; if you want the number of Americans dependent on government to push well past 50%; if you want to push the American dream we have all accessed to some extent completely out of reach to your kids within a generation, re-elect Obama. If you want to try to begin to dig us out of this mess and start clawing our way back in the other direction, elect the guy who has solid business sense, some of Reagan's economic proclivities, and a young VP candidate who is a solid conservative. Elect Mitt Romney. There really isn't a choice here for anyone that cares about the future of this country and of the future of generations to come. Out future depends on kicking Obama squarely out of office this November 6.
Read more!
> Ronald Reagan’s First Term – $656 billion increase
> Ronald Reagan’s Second Term – $1.036 trillion increase
> George H.W. Bush’s Term – $1.587 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton’s First Term – $1.122 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton’s Second Term – $418 billion increase
> George W. Bush’s First Term – $1.885 trillion increase
> George W. Bush’s Second Term – $3.014 trillion increase
> Barack Obama’s First 3.5 years -- $5.3 trillion
As you can see, NO president in the last 30 years has been a piker when it comes to piling on debt:
- In Reagan's case, he was hobbled by Democrats refusing to cooperate in reducing spending. No libs, this had nothing to do with tax cuts: Revenues to the treasury soared after Reagan cut tax rates. But spending soared as well.
- George HW Bush fought one war and lost the spending battle to Democrats.
- The increase in the national debt in Clinton's second term would have been far worse but for the fact that the Democrats got their clocks cleaned in the 1994 mid-term elections and Republicans took over in the legislative branch.
- George W. Bush did many things well but didn't do us any favors on the national debt -- he spent like a drunken sailor, racking up $5 trillion in debt in eight years.
But no.
As Fox News Analyst Stephen Hayes pointed out, Obama, who has said at least twice in the past that it isn't wise to raise taxes in bad economic times, is now running for a second term on a platform of raising taxes in bad economic times. And not just on the "rich". He won't admit it, but he's actually raising taxes on everyone via the "Affordable Care" Act -- Obamacare -- increasing energy prices ("under my energy plan, the cost of energy will necessarily skyrocket", :"they can build a coal plant if they want to but it will bankrupt them" etc.), unreported inflation in food and energy prices and on and on.. In other words, Obama is basically telling us he will bankrupt the country and sink the economy given a second term.
Why will his plan bankrupt the economy? It's part of his "fundamental transformation" of a society that doesn't need "fundamental transformation", it needs fiscal and economic policies that are the exact opposite of Obama's. It needs the Reagan-era approach that brought us out of the true worst recession since the Great Depression -- the Carter Recession. This chart shows the difference between the Reagan and Obama approaches on unemployment 16 months into the Reagan recovery vs 16 months into the Obama "recovery":
Reagan's approach had unemployment dropping three percent. Obama's unemployment rate actually rose. This article explains clearly point by point how Reagan's approach worked and Obama's isn't working. In fact, this article shows how in every instance, tax cuts for all correspond with economic growth and prosperity for all. Too bad our socialist president is a lousy student of American economic history.
So the choice is clear: If you want higher debt, higher unemployment a weak recovery (at best) and life on the brink of economic collapse for your children and grandchildren; if you want the number of Americans dependent on government to push well past 50%; if you want to push the American dream we have all accessed to some extent completely out of reach to your kids within a generation, re-elect Obama. If you want to try to begin to dig us out of this mess and start clawing our way back in the other direction, elect the guy who has solid business sense, some of Reagan's economic proclivities, and a young VP candidate who is a solid conservative. Elect Mitt Romney. There really isn't a choice here for anyone that cares about the future of this country and of the future of generations to come. Out future depends on kicking Obama squarely out of office this November 6.
Read more!
Newsweek, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Obama?
Who would have thought we'd ever see this on the cover of one of the premier Obama tools of the left-wing lapdog liberal media:
I still can't believe this is real. Must be some kind of lefty liberal media subterfuge. From "hope and change" to "hit the road". Who'da thunk it?
Read more!
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Time to go Bye Bye Todd
Regardless of the fact that this whole issue has been tainted by the liberal media and rampant hypocrisy from the left, it's time for Todd Akin to go.
If you are a Republican campaigning for a high-profile seat that we must win against a leftist Obama hack in Missouri, you need to be aware that the commie libs are going to do anything and everything to take you down. Which means you can't afford even ONE stupid comment. Yes Joe Biden can stick his foot in his mouth five times a day and get a pass on every one of them. But Biden is the leftist court jester of a Communist presidential administration -- the media are automatically going to give him a pass.
If you are going to engage in political warfare with the left -- and if you are running for a senate seat both sides understand they MUST win, you are right in the fray -- and you don't understand that you can't make one bonehead comment -- let alone a bonehead comment of epic proportions, you shouldn't be in the race. But if you DO make a bonehead comment of epic proportions you need to be smart enough to understand it's time to take one for the party and get the hell out. This is what Todd Akin should have done.
Todd Akin didn't do this but from what Reince Priebus, the head of the Republican National Committee said it isn't too late -- yet. But there are some hoops that he would have to jump though in the next couple of weeks to get it done. Time to start jumping.
Time to go Mr. Akin. If it's a legitimate bonehead comment, the Republican Party has ways of taking care of that. Step down while we still have a chance to get someone in there and get some traction against a wildly unpopular Obama puppet. This is a seat we NEED to win and you are no longer the person who can win it for us.
Read more!
If you are a Republican campaigning for a high-profile seat that we must win against a leftist Obama hack in Missouri, you need to be aware that the commie libs are going to do anything and everything to take you down. Which means you can't afford even ONE stupid comment. Yes Joe Biden can stick his foot in his mouth five times a day and get a pass on every one of them. But Biden is the leftist court jester of a Communist presidential administration -- the media are automatically going to give him a pass.
If you are going to engage in political warfare with the left -- and if you are running for a senate seat both sides understand they MUST win, you are right in the fray -- and you don't understand that you can't make one bonehead comment -- let alone a bonehead comment of epic proportions, you shouldn't be in the race. But if you DO make a bonehead comment of epic proportions you need to be smart enough to understand it's time to take one for the party and get the hell out. This is what Todd Akin should have done.
Todd Akin didn't do this but from what Reince Priebus, the head of the Republican National Committee said it isn't too late -- yet. But there are some hoops that he would have to jump though in the next couple of weeks to get it done. Time to start jumping.
Time to go Mr. Akin. If it's a legitimate bonehead comment, the Republican Party has ways of taking care of that. Step down while we still have a chance to get someone in there and get some traction against a wildly unpopular Obama puppet. This is a seat we NEED to win and you are no longer the person who can win it for us.
Read more!
Monday, August 20, 2012
Is Anyone Still Stupid Enough to Believe this Crap?
Apparently, there are still some lefty lemmings who are. I'm talking, of course, about this lame video entitled :"This Video Might Stop Romney From Becoming President". Really????? As if most of us are stupid enough to buy MoveOn.org's propaganda.
At the risk of giving this crap more publicity than it deserves, I'll comment on it.
This really shows how desperate the liberal loons on the left are becoming and what a bunch of intellectually bankrupt sheep their followers are. I would take this video apart minute by minute, but it isn't worth my time. So we'll just take the first couple minutes or so of it -- as much as of the bilge as I could stomach -- and rip it apart piece by piece.
The MoveOn Moonies can't get too far into the piece without the requisite slap at Romney and the dog on the roof of his car. On the way to dinner tonight, I saw at least two dogs in the back of pick-up trucks -- so what? Romney put a dog in a carrier on the roof of his car, Obama ATE dog. BFD.
Then, of course, the next Pavlovian signal for the lefty loons is "Romney won't release his taxes". How's "none of your damn business" grab you, Soros? How many billions is the guy who funds MoveOn and a host of other leftist organizations worth? A tad more than Romney. I don't remember MoveOn being concerned about the $1 billion fortune John F'in Kerry married into. Or the fact that John Edwards was worth $50 million when he was running for president. How about the fact that Slick Willie Clinton, who didn't have a pot to piss in when he ascended to the presidency, managed to parlay his eight years in the Oval Office into a $100 million fortune within years of leaving office (even without a law license)? Or that Algore managed to take $2 million and turn it into $150 million by scaring the crap out of every American about that non-existent phenomenon called "man-made global warming". No MoveOn is not a bit concerned about rich Democrats (oh, yeah I forgot Nancy "the Ditz" Pelosi -- worth $50 million and Harry "Dirty Land Deal" Reid who managed to turn a career as a public servant into $10 million dollars), not even their messiah who has accomplished less than any president in history yet has amassed a $10 million fortune mostly off a couple of ghost-written books.
Finally, at some point in the first couple of minutes of this lefty screed, the hip commie chic intones "didn't somebody vet this guy?" My question is, what guy is she talking about?: ·
The guy who is the bastard child of a hippie mother and womanizing drunk father? ·
The guy who was mostly raised by his grandparents and whose father figure during his formative years was card-carrying communist Frank Marshall Davis? ·
The guy who sat in the pew for 20 years lapping up the racist, hate-filled, anti-American diatribes of Black Liberation Theologist Jeremiah Wright (who, incidentally, retired to a multimillion dollar house in an exclusive gated community) -- the guy who married he and his lovely wife and baptized his kids -- yet claims he never heard a thing? ·
The guy who launched his political career in the home of radical leftist Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers? ·
The guy who has been caught on camera numerous times (even during his presidency) running down the capitalist system and repeatedly insisting that the 1% that pay 40% of the taxes in this country need to "have some skin in the game". ·
The guy who, in interviews as a state senator from Illinois bemoaned the fact that the court system in this country didn't do enough to address the issue of "redistributive justice"?
If THIS is the guy she's talking about, I would definitely agree. But there are those of us who were trying to tell the "hopey changey" crowd this four years ago and there weren't enough people listening. Hopefully the rectal cranial inversion that overcame so many on that dark day back in November of 2008 will be reversed in 2012.
"In 4 minutes, you’ll know what you need to" is the claim made by the lefty loons of MoveOn.org regarding their "shocking" Romney expose. This is the site, you might remember, that was founded on the notion that we should "move on" from worrying about a president who sexually harassed a young intern into having oral sex with him in the Oval Office, then lied under oath and tied the whole executive branch of the federal government up in an 18-month cover up. A more accurate claim would be that in four minutes we'll know if you are stupid enough to believe this crap by seeing if you hit the "share on Facebook" button and send it to people who are smart enough to know better.
Read more!
At the risk of giving this crap more publicity than it deserves, I'll comment on it.
This really shows how desperate the liberal loons on the left are becoming and what a bunch of intellectually bankrupt sheep their followers are. I would take this video apart minute by minute, but it isn't worth my time. So we'll just take the first couple minutes or so of it -- as much as of the bilge as I could stomach -- and rip it apart piece by piece.
The MoveOn Moonies can't get too far into the piece without the requisite slap at Romney and the dog on the roof of his car. On the way to dinner tonight, I saw at least two dogs in the back of pick-up trucks -- so what? Romney put a dog in a carrier on the roof of his car, Obama ATE dog. BFD.
Then, of course, the next Pavlovian signal for the lefty loons is "Romney won't release his taxes". How's "none of your damn business" grab you, Soros? How many billions is the guy who funds MoveOn and a host of other leftist organizations worth? A tad more than Romney. I don't remember MoveOn being concerned about the $1 billion fortune John F'in Kerry married into. Or the fact that John Edwards was worth $50 million when he was running for president. How about the fact that Slick Willie Clinton, who didn't have a pot to piss in when he ascended to the presidency, managed to parlay his eight years in the Oval Office into a $100 million fortune within years of leaving office (even without a law license)? Or that Algore managed to take $2 million and turn it into $150 million by scaring the crap out of every American about that non-existent phenomenon called "man-made global warming". No MoveOn is not a bit concerned about rich Democrats (oh, yeah I forgot Nancy "the Ditz" Pelosi -- worth $50 million and Harry "Dirty Land Deal" Reid who managed to turn a career as a public servant into $10 million dollars), not even their messiah who has accomplished less than any president in history yet has amassed a $10 million fortune mostly off a couple of ghost-written books.
Finally, at some point in the first couple of minutes of this lefty screed, the hip commie chic intones "didn't somebody vet this guy?" My question is, what guy is she talking about?: ·
The guy who is the bastard child of a hippie mother and womanizing drunk father? ·
The guy who was mostly raised by his grandparents and whose father figure during his formative years was card-carrying communist Frank Marshall Davis? ·
The guy who sat in the pew for 20 years lapping up the racist, hate-filled, anti-American diatribes of Black Liberation Theologist Jeremiah Wright (who, incidentally, retired to a multimillion dollar house in an exclusive gated community) -- the guy who married he and his lovely wife and baptized his kids -- yet claims he never heard a thing? ·
The guy who launched his political career in the home of radical leftist Weather Underground bomber Bill Ayers? ·
The guy who has been caught on camera numerous times (even during his presidency) running down the capitalist system and repeatedly insisting that the 1% that pay 40% of the taxes in this country need to "have some skin in the game". ·
The guy who, in interviews as a state senator from Illinois bemoaned the fact that the court system in this country didn't do enough to address the issue of "redistributive justice"?
If THIS is the guy she's talking about, I would definitely agree. But there are those of us who were trying to tell the "hopey changey" crowd this four years ago and there weren't enough people listening. Hopefully the rectal cranial inversion that overcame so many on that dark day back in November of 2008 will be reversed in 2012.
"In 4 minutes, you’ll know what you need to" is the claim made by the lefty loons of MoveOn.org regarding their "shocking" Romney expose. This is the site, you might remember, that was founded on the notion that we should "move on" from worrying about a president who sexually harassed a young intern into having oral sex with him in the Oval Office, then lied under oath and tied the whole executive branch of the federal government up in an 18-month cover up. A more accurate claim would be that in four minutes we'll know if you are stupid enough to believe this crap by seeing if you hit the "share on Facebook" button and send it to people who are smart enough to know better.
Read more!
Sunday, August 19, 2012
What Does "Choice" Look Like?
It looks like this:
Does this offend you. pro-"choicers"? I hope so and so does Operation Rescue, the group paying for these trucks. They rolled them out again this election year to remind everyone to vote pro-life. I last saw these truck out on Iowa streets during the last presidential election. Back, then Jill June, Planned Parenthood of Central Iowa's director, told the Des Moines Register she was extremely offended by the images on these trucks. Apparently she wasn't offended by this by-product of "a woman's right to choose" that her clinics tossed in the garbage on a daily basis which just so happens look just like the pictures on this truck.
There are a number of ridiculous euphemisms liberals like to use for what Planned Parenthood does: "women's reproductive health services", "maternal and child health services", and "women being able to make their own decisions about their reproductive health". Whenever conservatives attempt to de-fund this organization you always hear leftist twits like Nancy Pelosi shriek that conservatives are trying to rob women of their right to make "reproductive health choices". Let's be real folks: Is killing a baby a "reproductive health choice"? And aren't there other places women can (and do) go for pap smears and breast exams? Finally, does a "non-profit" organization that actually turns a profit on it's nearly $1 billion in revenues need to get one-third of its revenue from the taxpayers?
Planned Parenthood claims they don't make the majority of their revenues from abortions. But regardless of whether they do or not, they still provide darned near 10% of the abortions performed in this country every year which is around 300,000 abortions too many as a direct result of Planned Parenthood's existence. And you, the taxpayer, are supporting this slaughter through the $300+ million the federal government gives Planned Parenthood every year -- a practice that has the overwhelming support of Barack Obama. In fact, the Great and Powerful Obama is an enthusiastic supporter of all abortion, even late term abortions, and introduced a measure in the Illinois senate to prohibit the use of life-saving measures on the tiny victims of botched late-term abortions. Yes, Barry wanted to require doctors to take these babies into a room and let them die rather than trying to save them.
There are a lot of important issues to be decided in the 2012 presidential election and this one ranks right up there. On the one hand you have Mitt Romney, who claims to be pro-life and on the other you have an enthusiastic supporter of abortion -- Barry Obama. Barry has a name for ripping a human life limb from limb: He calls it a "women's reproductive health choice". Take a look at the result of that choice above. If it offends you, then you ought to be equally offended by a president who tries to defend it by calling it something it's not. It's a child, not a "choice".
Read more!
Does this offend you. pro-"choicers"? I hope so and so does Operation Rescue, the group paying for these trucks. They rolled them out again this election year to remind everyone to vote pro-life. I last saw these truck out on Iowa streets during the last presidential election. Back, then Jill June, Planned Parenthood of Central Iowa's director, told the Des Moines Register she was extremely offended by the images on these trucks. Apparently she wasn't offended by this by-product of "a woman's right to choose" that her clinics tossed in the garbage on a daily basis which just so happens look just like the pictures on this truck.
There are a number of ridiculous euphemisms liberals like to use for what Planned Parenthood does: "women's reproductive health services", "maternal and child health services", and "women being able to make their own decisions about their reproductive health". Whenever conservatives attempt to de-fund this organization you always hear leftist twits like Nancy Pelosi shriek that conservatives are trying to rob women of their right to make "reproductive health choices". Let's be real folks: Is killing a baby a "reproductive health choice"? And aren't there other places women can (and do) go for pap smears and breast exams? Finally, does a "non-profit" organization that actually turns a profit on it's nearly $1 billion in revenues need to get one-third of its revenue from the taxpayers?
Planned Parenthood claims they don't make the majority of their revenues from abortions. But regardless of whether they do or not, they still provide darned near 10% of the abortions performed in this country every year which is around 300,000 abortions too many as a direct result of Planned Parenthood's existence. And you, the taxpayer, are supporting this slaughter through the $300+ million the federal government gives Planned Parenthood every year -- a practice that has the overwhelming support of Barack Obama. In fact, the Great and Powerful Obama is an enthusiastic supporter of all abortion, even late term abortions, and introduced a measure in the Illinois senate to prohibit the use of life-saving measures on the tiny victims of botched late-term abortions. Yes, Barry wanted to require doctors to take these babies into a room and let them die rather than trying to save them.
There are a lot of important issues to be decided in the 2012 presidential election and this one ranks right up there. On the one hand you have Mitt Romney, who claims to be pro-life and on the other you have an enthusiastic supporter of abortion -- Barry Obama. Barry has a name for ripping a human life limb from limb: He calls it a "women's reproductive health choice". Take a look at the result of that choice above. If it offends you, then you ought to be equally offended by a president who tries to defend it by calling it something it's not. It's a child, not a "choice".
Read more!
Saturday, August 18, 2012
The Chief of the Food Police Harasses Gabby Douglas
By now everyone has probably heard about this:
Yes, it's the Chief of the Food Police Michele Obama scolding Olympic Gold Medalist Gabby Douglas for telling Jay Leno she celebrated her gold medal win by eating an Egg McMuffin.
It isn't possible for this woman to be more annoying than her husband because she's not actively engaged in "fundamentally transforming" our society into something that more closely resembles Venezuela that it does the greatest country on the face of the earth. She does, however, have this Eva Peron quality about her in the way she wants to dictate to us "peasants" out in the cheap seats what we should eat and what we shouldn't, how much exercise we should engage in on a daily/weekly/monthly basis and what type of celebratory meal is appropriate for a girl who is enough of an extraordinary physical specimen that she can jump around and do back flips on a four inch wide beam poised three feet off the ground. I'm thinking Gabby Douglas is the one who is in a better position than Mrs. Food Policeman to be lecturing about diet and appropriate amounts of physical activity. Furthermore, I think a diminutive gymnast in excellent physical condition can afford the luxury of the occasional Egg McMuffin. Besides, I thought eggs, cheese and muffins were good for you. And even if an Egg McMuffin was as bad for you as rat poison, it's really none of Mrs. Obama's damn business who does and who doesn't eat one. Perhaps the Chief of the Food Police ought to join hands with Mr. Big Gulp Mike Bloomberg and take a long walk off a short pier. I urge everyone to celebrate Gabby's gold medal by going out and buying several Egg McMuffins.
Read more!
Yes, it's the Chief of the Food Police Michele Obama scolding Olympic Gold Medalist Gabby Douglas for telling Jay Leno she celebrated her gold medal win by eating an Egg McMuffin.
It isn't possible for this woman to be more annoying than her husband because she's not actively engaged in "fundamentally transforming" our society into something that more closely resembles Venezuela that it does the greatest country on the face of the earth. She does, however, have this Eva Peron quality about her in the way she wants to dictate to us "peasants" out in the cheap seats what we should eat and what we shouldn't, how much exercise we should engage in on a daily/weekly/monthly basis and what type of celebratory meal is appropriate for a girl who is enough of an extraordinary physical specimen that she can jump around and do back flips on a four inch wide beam poised three feet off the ground. I'm thinking Gabby Douglas is the one who is in a better position than Mrs. Food Policeman to be lecturing about diet and appropriate amounts of physical activity. Furthermore, I think a diminutive gymnast in excellent physical condition can afford the luxury of the occasional Egg McMuffin. Besides, I thought eggs, cheese and muffins were good for you. And even if an Egg McMuffin was as bad for you as rat poison, it's really none of Mrs. Obama's damn business who does and who doesn't eat one. Perhaps the Chief of the Food Police ought to join hands with Mr. Big Gulp Mike Bloomberg and take a long walk off a short pier. I urge everyone to celebrate Gabby's gold medal by going out and buying several Egg McMuffins.
Read more!
Friday, August 17, 2012
Never Mind the REAL Issues: Let's Talk About Romney's Taxes
Never mind that nuclear war could break out in the Middle East at any moment. Never mind that unemployment has sustained its sky-high rate for longer than any other time since the Great Depression. Never mind that gas is expected to shoot up to record highs. Never mind that Obama's plan to have energy prices "naturally skyrocket" is coming true in spades. Never mind that in four short years, Obama's foreign policy has nearly achieved its objective: Lowering our status in the world to that of any other big country. Yes, don't worry about any of these REAL, pressing issues. It's time to talk about Mitt Romney's and Paul Ryan's taxes.
The ever-pompous Bob Schieffer led the CBS Evening News with a rectal exam of middle class dude Paul Ryan's 2012 tax return. I marvel at the Evening News editor's astute sense of what's really important. Their ability to pick as their lead the story that has the absolute maximum impact on the life of their average viewer is astounding. The fact that Ryan made $215, 000 in 2010 -- well below Chairman Maobamas's arbitrary definition of "rich" -- and approx. $325,000 in 2011 is of utmost importance to me and millions of other folks. The news that Paul Ryan's family of five pulled in a tad bit more than his annual congressional salary in 2011 has almost as much impact on my life (and every other American's) as the color of my neighbor's belly button lint. But as a respected news organization, CBS News has its priorities straight by golly. And the fact that Ryan's income in 2011 was roughly six times the per capita household income in America is bound to piss someone off. If, as I'm sure Bob Schieffer hopes, it pisses some people off enough to vote for the other guy -- Barack Obama -- CBS News will have done its job as a shameless liberal shill for the Democrats campaign to re-elect their messiah.
CBS News does indeed have a bloodhound's sense of what the important stories of the day are, which is why they also diligently covered the REALLY important story of the day: The Obama campaign's generous offer to stop harassing Mitt Romney about releasing years and years of his tax returns if he'll just release years and years of his tax returns. Why is the Obama campaign extending this "generous" offer to the Romney camp? So they an get their grubby paws on actual fodder for the class warfare game they want to wage against the Romney campaign. No need to have to resort to the reckless innuendo Dirty Land Deal Harry Reid and other rich Democrats have been slinging around for weeks if they can trick Romney into handing over the tax returns.
So far, the Romney camp has held fast against Obama's naked attempts to take his class warfare to a higher level. The answer to the Obama camps blackmail should be pretty straightforward: Screw you! As Paul Ryan has pointed out recently, this country was founded on the principle of equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. The only thing Mitt Romney's income and the way he made it says about him is that he is an extraordinarily successful businessman and apparently posesses all the qualities we need in a president right about now. In order to recover from the failed policies of a president who has spent like a drunken sailor and run up more debt in three years than most of the previous 235+ years combined, we need someone who has demonstrated that he can successfully turn around organizations that are in serious financial crises. Our nation finds itself in the middle of an epic financial crisis and Mitt Romney is the candidate who is capable of turning it around because he's proven his worth in the private sector and been richly rewarded for his hard work in doing just that.
Romney's not like the Democrat's recent presidential candidates: He's not in the race because he sees an opportunity to parlay a presidential resume into big bucks as Slick Willie the alleged rapist and proven sexual harasser did or Barack Obama, the closet Communist, will after November 6, 2012. He doesn't need the job, he doesn't need the hassles and he certainly doesn't need the harassment from jealous leftists who want to exploit his monetary success for political gain. The only reason why a self-made, straight-arrow guy worth $250 million would campaign for the highest pressure job in the world that pays a measly $400,000 a year is because of a sense of patriotism and because he wants to give back to the country that enabled him to achieve great success.
It should be obvious to anyone that the Dems and their failed president are simply exploiting Romney's wealth for political gain. After all, the richest group of senators and congressmen are Democrats and Democrats don't seem to be concerned at all about exposing THEIR wealth. So here are some simple questions about Democrat hypocrisy on the issue of wealth and taxes:
No one does class warfare better than the Democrats. With three and a half years behind him no record to run on, what else can Obama and his supporters resort to besides baseless attacks and naked attempts to foster envy and resentment in voters over the fortune Mitt Romney worked hard to earn? I have faith that voters will be smart enough to see through this naked class envy exploitation. And I certain hope the Romney camp is savvy enough not to get entangled in Obama's class envy trap.
Read more!
The ever-pompous Bob Schieffer led the CBS Evening News with a rectal exam of middle class dude Paul Ryan's 2012 tax return. I marvel at the Evening News editor's astute sense of what's really important. Their ability to pick as their lead the story that has the absolute maximum impact on the life of their average viewer is astounding. The fact that Ryan made $215, 000 in 2010 -- well below Chairman Maobamas's arbitrary definition of "rich" -- and approx. $325,000 in 2011 is of utmost importance to me and millions of other folks. The news that Paul Ryan's family of five pulled in a tad bit more than his annual congressional salary in 2011 has almost as much impact on my life (and every other American's) as the color of my neighbor's belly button lint. But as a respected news organization, CBS News has its priorities straight by golly. And the fact that Ryan's income in 2011 was roughly six times the per capita household income in America is bound to piss someone off. If, as I'm sure Bob Schieffer hopes, it pisses some people off enough to vote for the other guy -- Barack Obama -- CBS News will have done its job as a shameless liberal shill for the Democrats campaign to re-elect their messiah.
CBS News does indeed have a bloodhound's sense of what the important stories of the day are, which is why they also diligently covered the REALLY important story of the day: The Obama campaign's generous offer to stop harassing Mitt Romney about releasing years and years of his tax returns if he'll just release years and years of his tax returns. Why is the Obama campaign extending this "generous" offer to the Romney camp? So they an get their grubby paws on actual fodder for the class warfare game they want to wage against the Romney campaign. No need to have to resort to the reckless innuendo Dirty Land Deal Harry Reid and other rich Democrats have been slinging around for weeks if they can trick Romney into handing over the tax returns.
So far, the Romney camp has held fast against Obama's naked attempts to take his class warfare to a higher level. The answer to the Obama camps blackmail should be pretty straightforward: Screw you! As Paul Ryan has pointed out recently, this country was founded on the principle of equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. The only thing Mitt Romney's income and the way he made it says about him is that he is an extraordinarily successful businessman and apparently posesses all the qualities we need in a president right about now. In order to recover from the failed policies of a president who has spent like a drunken sailor and run up more debt in three years than most of the previous 235+ years combined, we need someone who has demonstrated that he can successfully turn around organizations that are in serious financial crises. Our nation finds itself in the middle of an epic financial crisis and Mitt Romney is the candidate who is capable of turning it around because he's proven his worth in the private sector and been richly rewarded for his hard work in doing just that.
Romney's not like the Democrat's recent presidential candidates: He's not in the race because he sees an opportunity to parlay a presidential resume into big bucks as Slick Willie the alleged rapist and proven sexual harasser did or Barack Obama, the closet Communist, will after November 6, 2012. He doesn't need the job, he doesn't need the hassles and he certainly doesn't need the harassment from jealous leftists who want to exploit his monetary success for political gain. The only reason why a self-made, straight-arrow guy worth $250 million would campaign for the highest pressure job in the world that pays a measly $400,000 a year is because of a sense of patriotism and because he wants to give back to the country that enabled him to achieve great success.
It should be obvious to anyone that the Dems and their failed president are simply exploiting Romney's wealth for political gain. After all, the richest group of senators and congressmen are Democrats and Democrats don't seem to be concerned at all about exposing THEIR wealth. So here are some simple questions about Democrat hypocrisy on the issue of wealth and taxes:
- Did anyone accuse John Kerry who twice married into hundreds of millions of dollars, of trying to hide his wealth when he purposely filed his taxes separate from his wife who at the time he ran for president was worth better than $500 million?
- Does anyone point out the absurdity of someone like the vapid Nancy Pelosi, who is worth between $50 and $75 million or more, holding a press conference to talk about Mitt Romney's wealth?
- When Harry Reid repeatedly slanders Mitt Romney on the issue of his taxes and refuses to provide any proof of the allegations, does anyone bother to point out that Harry Reid is worth upwards of $5 million himself -- money that he made on questionable land deals during his decades in the U.S. Senate?
- Why doesn't someone point out that Vice President Algore -- the second most worthless veep in modern history next to the current veep -- was worth about $2 million when he left office 12 years ago and made better than $50 million in the intervening years by scaring the crap out of everyone about global warming? Or that the $9 million estate he just bought in California less than two years ago will be underwater within the decade if his predictions about rising sea levels come true?
- On that same note, is it worth noting that Bill Clinton, who is staunchly in favor of full disclosure when it comes to Romney's wealth, was a virtual pauper before he assumed the presidency but is worth upwards of $75 million now?
- Finally, isn't it just a tad bit hypocritical that a president who is himself worth around $10 million, mostly earned on the sales of his ghostwritten books, will implore Romney to engage in full disclosure when we still don't know how that president managed to get into Ivy League schools despite admitting he was a poor student in high school?
No one does class warfare better than the Democrats. With three and a half years behind him no record to run on, what else can Obama and his supporters resort to besides baseless attacks and naked attempts to foster envy and resentment in voters over the fortune Mitt Romney worked hard to earn? I have faith that voters will be smart enough to see through this naked class envy exploitation. And I certain hope the Romney camp is savvy enough not to get entangled in Obama's class envy trap.
Read more!
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Conservative Sends Money to Barack's Little Brother for Medical Bills
Barack Obama has been roaming the country on our dime for the last few months whining about how conservatives don't care about America's poor -- arguably are the "richest" poor people in the world -- while at the same time refusing to extend any aid to his half-brother George Obama who lives in actual abject poverty in Kenya. That's okay, because if George's millionaire brother won't help him, conservative author Dinesh D'Souza is more than happy to send him some money:
Dinesh D’Souza, co-director of the film "2016 — Obama's America," and author of the new book "Obama’s America," sent money to cover the hospital bill of a sick child belonging to President Barack Obama’s brother after George Obama pleaded with him over the phone for help.
In a column published on FoxNews.com, D’Souza outlines how George Obama, the youngest of eight children sired by Barack Obama Sr., asked him to send $1,000 to cover medical bills for his young son who was sick with a chest condition.
Read more!
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Who's Slashing Medicare, Barry?
Finally, we have a vice-presidential candidate who is out there telling the truth and fighting back against the blatant lies of the Obama smear machine
One of the biggest of these lies, of course, is that Democrats hold the franchise on "saving" Medicare for seniors and Republicans want to "eliminate" Medicare. The Dems have even resurrected that preposterous ad where a Paul Ryan look-alike is pushing grandma off a cliff. Ryan wasted no time in striking back against this ridiculous canard and other conservatives such as Rich Lowry have joined the cause. On Meet the Press last Sunday, Lowry had the supposed "intellectual" leftist Rachel Maddow (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one} stuttering and stammering when faced with the fact that Obamacare actually CUTS damn near $800 billion from Medicare. Over the last few days, other leftists have been left similarly speechless when conservatives have pointed out that Medicare actuaries say that if something isn't done to fix it, Medicare is gone in 11 years. Furthermore the notion that Ryan's plan is actually a REAL plan to save Medicare and keeps the current plan for anyone age 55 and over while offering those under 55 viable options that help preserve Medicare for the future leaves leftist pundits sputtering. They become utterly apoplectic when this explanation is followed by the truth about the Obama plan to gut Medicare to fund Obamacare. But leftists everywhere don't have to take MY word for the fact that their messiah Barack Obama intends to slash Medicare. They can take HIS word for it:
Read more!
Read more!
Joe Biden Slithers Even Further into the Gutter
It's no secret that the campaign to re-elect the worst
president in modern American history is the
sleaziest presidential campaign in modern presidential history by far. After all, when you
have no record to run on. after damn near four years in office, you have to
resort to baseless attacks and sleazy insinuations. So for months now we've had
to put up with the usual leftist bull crap insinuations and smears about
"rich" Mitt Romney from a bunch of "rich" leftists like the
president (est. $10 million net worth) and Harry Reid (est. $4 million net
worth made mostly by land deals during his tenure as a "public
servant") and Nancy Pelosi (estimated net worth $100 million). We've even
seen Obama's super PAC, run by a former White House staffer, implicate Romney
in the cancer death of a steelworker's wife. But that affable dunce Joe Biden has taken the smears to a new low:
At a campaign stop in Virginia before a racially mixed crowd, Biden was talking about Mitt Romney’s opposition to banking regulations when he said, “Look at their budget and what they’re proposing. Romney wants to let the – he said in the first hundred days, he is going to let the big banks once again write their own rules. Unchain Wall Street. They are going to put y’all back in chains.”
Now we all know Joe Biden is a fool who regularly feasts on
his foot. He's a veep in the fine tradition of Algore: An unimpressive court
jester who won't upstage the lightweight on the top of the ticket. But these
comments were clearly intentional and beyond the pale. With better than 80 days
to go, it's hard to imagine how much further the Obama/Biden team can sink into
the gutter.
Read more!
Friday, June 01, 2012
A Murdered Baby By Any Other Name is ...
A "non-consentually terminated pregnancy" at least that's what it is out here in flyover country. Dirtbag Seth Techel's arrest for his pregnant wife's murder presents us with a perfect example of how liberalism forces us to play semantic games to mask the truth.
Techel was charged with first-degree murder in the shotgun death of his wife. For murdering her unborn child he was charged with "nonconsensual (nearly rhymes with nonsensical except that nonsensical is an actual WORD) termination of a human pregnancy" . Techel's wife was 17 weeks pregnant, apparently not with an actual baby. No, she was apparently pregnant with a "human pregnancy". And thus you have the absurdity of liberal-speak.
Everyone knows that the vast majority of "human pregnancies" at 17 weeks turn into full term babies. Everyone knows that a 17-week "human pregnancy" is in fact an unborn baby that will through the natural course of events be able to live outside its mother within another 20 or so weeks and in fact have been viable in some cases at 21 weeks. And if you want to talk about "viability" everyone knows that if we were to apply a strict "viability" test, most kids under the age of 10 or so would be incapable of fending for themselves and therefore not "viable". But liberals and the courts have had such great success in highjacking the lexicon that we are no longer allowed to admit the truth: That Seth Techel in fact should have been charged with two murders -- one for his wife and one for his unborn child.
Lying, twisting the facts and playing semantic games are all a major part of liberalism and nothing demonstrates this better than all of the lying, fact-twisting and semantics surrounding government-sanctioned baby-killing otherwise known as abortion. They are in fact "offended" not at the act of baby killing itself but whenever someone in their right mind confronts them with the naked truth by showing pictures of the severed body parts of a baby sucked out of a womb. Liberals don't even like the word abortion. Instead, they substitute phrases such as "women's reproductive health decisions" or as I heard Tamara Holder put it on Sean Hannity's radio show today, us evil conservatives want to rob women of "the right to make their own medical decisions".
All of this arises from the Big Lie perpetrated by a liberal court damn near 40 years ago dictating that an unborn child in not an unborn child but a "women's right to privacy". In other words, if Techel and his wife had made a "reproductive health decision" to kill the baby, the baby would be just as dead as it is today but no one would have been charged with anything. But to charge Techel with murdering his unborn child would expose this lie for what it is. So we label the child a "human pregnancy" and the murder a "termination" of said "human pregnancy".
As I eluded to earlier, the semantic games liberals play to mask the truth aren't confined to this issue. Choose the topic and you have some liberal weasel speak to obfuscate the facts: Revenue enhancements = tax increases; "paying your fair share" or "having some skin in the game" means middle and upper income taxpayers shoulder an even bigger tax burden. When the globe started cooling again, "global warming" became "climate change". Illegal immigrants aren't illegal as they are in other countries, they are "undocumented". And asking every voter to do something no one in their right mind would object to -- proving they are actually eligible to vote by showing an ID at the polls -- is "disenfranchising voters" even though EVERYONE is required to have a picture ID to drive a car, get on a plane, buy alcohol and cigarettes, cash a check etc.
These are just a very few examples of liberal weasel speak. Following The Great and Powerful Obama (or any other liberal leader) around all day and you will find that nearly every other phrase that comes out of his mouth is liberal weasel speak.
In the end however, we all know the truth, even liberals: Taxes are taxes, man-made global warming is a myth, anyone who is unwilling or unable to prove their eligibility to vote probably isn't eligible to vote and a murdered baby by any other name is still a murdered baby.
Read more!
Techel was charged with first-degree murder in the shotgun death of his wife. For murdering her unborn child he was charged with "nonconsensual (nearly rhymes with nonsensical except that nonsensical is an actual WORD) termination of a human pregnancy" . Techel's wife was 17 weeks pregnant, apparently not with an actual baby. No, she was apparently pregnant with a "human pregnancy". And thus you have the absurdity of liberal-speak.
Everyone knows that the vast majority of "human pregnancies" at 17 weeks turn into full term babies. Everyone knows that a 17-week "human pregnancy" is in fact an unborn baby that will through the natural course of events be able to live outside its mother within another 20 or so weeks and in fact have been viable in some cases at 21 weeks. And if you want to talk about "viability" everyone knows that if we were to apply a strict "viability" test, most kids under the age of 10 or so would be incapable of fending for themselves and therefore not "viable". But liberals and the courts have had such great success in highjacking the lexicon that we are no longer allowed to admit the truth: That Seth Techel in fact should have been charged with two murders -- one for his wife and one for his unborn child.
Lying, twisting the facts and playing semantic games are all a major part of liberalism and nothing demonstrates this better than all of the lying, fact-twisting and semantics surrounding government-sanctioned baby-killing otherwise known as abortion. They are in fact "offended" not at the act of baby killing itself but whenever someone in their right mind confronts them with the naked truth by showing pictures of the severed body parts of a baby sucked out of a womb. Liberals don't even like the word abortion. Instead, they substitute phrases such as "women's reproductive health decisions" or as I heard Tamara Holder put it on Sean Hannity's radio show today, us evil conservatives want to rob women of "the right to make their own medical decisions".
All of this arises from the Big Lie perpetrated by a liberal court damn near 40 years ago dictating that an unborn child in not an unborn child but a "women's right to privacy". In other words, if Techel and his wife had made a "reproductive health decision" to kill the baby, the baby would be just as dead as it is today but no one would have been charged with anything. But to charge Techel with murdering his unborn child would expose this lie for what it is. So we label the child a "human pregnancy" and the murder a "termination" of said "human pregnancy".
As I eluded to earlier, the semantic games liberals play to mask the truth aren't confined to this issue. Choose the topic and you have some liberal weasel speak to obfuscate the facts: Revenue enhancements = tax increases; "paying your fair share" or "having some skin in the game" means middle and upper income taxpayers shoulder an even bigger tax burden. When the globe started cooling again, "global warming" became "climate change". Illegal immigrants aren't illegal as they are in other countries, they are "undocumented". And asking every voter to do something no one in their right mind would object to -- proving they are actually eligible to vote by showing an ID at the polls -- is "disenfranchising voters" even though EVERYONE is required to have a picture ID to drive a car, get on a plane, buy alcohol and cigarettes, cash a check etc.
These are just a very few examples of liberal weasel speak. Following The Great and Powerful Obama (or any other liberal leader) around all day and you will find that nearly every other phrase that comes out of his mouth is liberal weasel speak.
In the end however, we all know the truth, even liberals: Taxes are taxes, man-made global warming is a myth, anyone who is unwilling or unable to prove their eligibility to vote probably isn't eligible to vote and a murdered baby by any other name is still a murdered baby.
Read more!
Monday, May 28, 2012
Congratulations Graduates! Your Graduation Gift From Obama: Dependence, Unemployment and (if You're Lucky) a Chance to Help Pull the Cart
Tens of thousands of fresh-faced young folks are walking down the aisle to receive that coveted diploma they worked four-plus years and paid upwards of $150,000 for. As they make their way into the adult world the Obama Administration has a message for them: Don't worry about health care kids, you parents have it for you.
You see, once upon a time, the definition of "adult" was eighteen. Then we decided that even though you could fight and die for your country at eighteen, you were still a "kid" because we didn't think you could handle adult responsibilities like buying alcohol and the official definition of "adult" became 21. At any rate, it has been universally accepted for decades that by the time you were out of college -- 22 or 23 -- society considered you old enough to take on "adult" status meaning you took care of such things as housing, transportation, food and medical care. No more, "kids"! Thanks to Obamacare, we've increased the definition of "child" to 26. Absurd as it may sound, we now consider adults who are well into their mid-20s to be "dependent children". As the link above, shows, the Obama Administration is urging colleges to sell the "free health care" benefit to their graduating adults: Great news kids, graduation from college no longer means a rite of passage from dependence on your parents to independence and adulthood, it's a passageway to dependence that you and your kids and grand kids will be paying for for the rest of your lives.
"But it's free health care! Free, right. Free from my parents", the fresh-faced little socialist-indoctrinated college sprouts squeal. "President Obama is giving it to me! Just like the woman who in those heady days after we elected "the first Black (or at least half-Black, but who's keeping track) president swooned that she won't have to worry about how she is going to put gas in her car or make her house payment anymore because Obama is president, I don't have to worry about paying for my health care. It's freeeeeeeeee!"
Not so fast, sprout.
Where does President Obama get his money? That's right, it comes from your folks, and your friend Amy's folks and her friend Fred's folks and on and into infinity and beyond go the taxes and the debt. Actually, President Obama doesn't "get" any money. Because less than half of us pay for "free" stuff for more than half of the rest of us, there isn't enough money to go around even as taxed as you parents probably are. So .... President Obama gets his "free" money by printing it or borrowing it from our enemies, the Chinese -- you know those folks who forty years ago we used to laugh at as a backwards, third-world oddity who now hold our financial future in the palms of their grubby little commie hands. And this printed and borrowed money has to be paid off some time. And I got news for you kids, your folks could work until they were 100 and turn every penny of what they earn over to the Great and Glorious Obama and it wouldn't be enough. Yeah, that's right kids: YOU and your kids and their kids AND THEIR KIDS will be paying confiscatory tax rates decades and decades into the future to pay for "free" health care for 26-year-old "kids"
So get started kids, because you've got a lot of "free" health care to pay off. And while you're at it, you need to start paying off those billions of dollars of loans to failed "green energy" companies that will never be paid back, and the food for the record number of people on food stamps and the bailouts for the people who, after three or four government refinance options, still aren't able to make the payments on their homes. You see, all this stuff is "free" to the 51% of the takers in American society, but not to you, the college graduate, who odds are will turn out to be one of the 49% who are pulling the cart. But with 40% unemployment for college graduates and an ever-increasing number of 20-somethings moving back in with their parents because they can't make it on their own in this longest period of sustained high unemployment since the Great Depression, it may be a tough slog for you. So take the "free" health care while you can, because once you are able to get a job in your field, you're going to be taking up your yoke in front of the wagon to pay for the "free" health care for the next generation of 26-year-old children.
Read more!
Saturday, February 05, 2011
Morgan Freeman Speaks the Truth About Black History Month
And race-relations in general.
I don't know why I hadn't heard this before yesterday when David Webb played it when he was subbing for Andrew Wilkow, because this clip is over two years old. But Morgan Freeman's comments on Black History Month (this month) are right on the money ... And their sheer brilliance left Mike Wallace sputtering and stammering:
This one short clip sums up race relations and the issue of race better than anything that has ever been said about the topic ,,,, and we all know a lot has been said about the topic.
Pure and simple, this country's obsession with race is, frankly, racist. What does the color of one's skin matter? Morgan Freeman wasn't about to let this obsession get in his way. Oprah Winfrey -- who once was heard to boast about the number of white people she had working for her -- a woman consumed with seeing things through the prism of her "black womanhood" excelled in spite of her obsession. The simple fact of the matter, as Morgan Freeman so plainly stated, is that we'd all be a hell of a lot better off if we saw ourselves as AMERICANS, not hyphenated-American whatever you want to call yourselves. This is a truth that was completely lost on liberal reporter Mike Wallace. It simply didn't compute. And that is the very problem.
Read more!
I don't know why I hadn't heard this before yesterday when David Webb played it when he was subbing for Andrew Wilkow, because this clip is over two years old. But Morgan Freeman's comments on Black History Month (this month) are right on the money ... And their sheer brilliance left Mike Wallace sputtering and stammering:
This one short clip sums up race relations and the issue of race better than anything that has ever been said about the topic ,,,, and we all know a lot has been said about the topic.
Pure and simple, this country's obsession with race is, frankly, racist. What does the color of one's skin matter? Morgan Freeman wasn't about to let this obsession get in his way. Oprah Winfrey -- who once was heard to boast about the number of white people she had working for her -- a woman consumed with seeing things through the prism of her "black womanhood" excelled in spite of her obsession. The simple fact of the matter, as Morgan Freeman so plainly stated, is that we'd all be a hell of a lot better off if we saw ourselves as AMERICANS, not hyphenated-American whatever you want to call yourselves. This is a truth that was completely lost on liberal reporter Mike Wallace. It simply didn't compute. And that is the very problem.
Read more!
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Wind Energy: Not Ready for Prime Time
You see literally dozens of these lined up all across Wyoming and Utah. They are popping up like mushrooms in Iowa and other places in the Midwest. The Once and Fallen Messiah touts them as the way he's going to bring the economy "back from the brink". One would presume that they would play a big part in his goal to generate 80% of our power from "green" sources. Given all this, it's too bad these things collapse in the face of a little cold weather:
The guy who posted this on his blog explains the phenonmenon: The fact that extreme cold stresses steel is scientific fact. And apparently 164 tons of stressed steel occasionally doesn't support itself very well. Additionally, the stresses of high winds can cause these monsters to blow apart. Some of the other hazards of wind turbines are detailed here in an article explaining that energy conservation efforts could actually save more energy than wind power generates. To top it all off, none of the multitude of articles detailing the problems with wind energy even talk about the cost of transporting these moronic devices. As someone who lives on Interstate 80 15 miles from a plant where these monsters are built, I can tell you that it takes a fleet of trucks and an armada of pilot vehicles to move just ONE of these eyesores to its final resting place.
Facts are facts and the facts are that "green" technology doesn't work. As Terry Brome pointed out in his blog post, when have you seen a coal or gas-fired power plant collapse under high wind speeds? And how many of these 1.5 megawatt turbines that sweeps two acres of vertical air space does it take to equal the output of ONE power plant? Why I'm glad you asked. It takes 750 1.5 megawatt wind turbines each sitting on a minimum one acre of space to produce the same amount of power as ONE modern coal-fired power plant.
When you actually examine the facts surrounding "green energy" sources, it becomes clear that the goal of the lefties (Barack Obama chief among them) is not to provide for our future energy needs with "green technology". It is to render our power grid a shell of it's former self and reduce our power-generating capacity to cut us down to size. Obama may be a dyed in the wool socialist brought up worshipping the communist Frank Marshall Davis and he may be a total buffoon as president but one thing he ain't is stupid. He has access to the same facts (even more) about the total impracticality of "green energy" as the average American does. To paraphrase the Once and Fallen Messiah, the plan is to cripple our ability to generate enough power to meet our needs causing the cost of generating power to "necessarily skyrocket", thereby knocking America down a couple notches on the world stage because it just isn't fair that we "have five percent of the world's population and consume 25% of the world's resources". "Spreading the wealth around" on a global scale is what it's all about here. But the average Joe would never believe that a president of the United States would actually set out to cripple our ability to produce enough power. Couple this fact with the righteous indignation hurled in the direction of anyone who voices the undeniable truth that this Marxist has a stated policy of contempt for America's status as the most prosperous nation on earth and what do you have? You have 75% of the American public blind to the fact that we are purposely diminishing our ability to produce enough power because the leftists want it that way.
Consider these facts:
What does this all mean? It means that Barack Obama and his merry band of leftists aren't just a gaggle of utter buffoons: They bave as their stated goal to diminish of America's status as a world power. After all (to paraphrase the ex-Messiah again) the people of Botswana and Namibia probably believe in Botswanan and Namibian exceptionalism as well. In other words, Barack doesn't believe that there is anything more exceptional about the United States than there is about any other country. Why should our power-generating capacity be any better than anyone else's? And why should we use more than the five percent of the world's resources our population deserves?
Want to end the decline in this country's power-generating capacity? End Barack Obama's (and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's and the multitude of other leftists) ability to have any influence on our energy policy: Boot them out of office!
Read more!
The guy who posted this on his blog explains the phenonmenon: The fact that extreme cold stresses steel is scientific fact. And apparently 164 tons of stressed steel occasionally doesn't support itself very well. Additionally, the stresses of high winds can cause these monsters to blow apart. Some of the other hazards of wind turbines are detailed here in an article explaining that energy conservation efforts could actually save more energy than wind power generates. To top it all off, none of the multitude of articles detailing the problems with wind energy even talk about the cost of transporting these moronic devices. As someone who lives on Interstate 80 15 miles from a plant where these monsters are built, I can tell you that it takes a fleet of trucks and an armada of pilot vehicles to move just ONE of these eyesores to its final resting place.
Facts are facts and the facts are that "green" technology doesn't work. As Terry Brome pointed out in his blog post, when have you seen a coal or gas-fired power plant collapse under high wind speeds? And how many of these 1.5 megawatt turbines that sweeps two acres of vertical air space does it take to equal the output of ONE power plant? Why I'm glad you asked. It takes 750 1.5 megawatt wind turbines each sitting on a minimum one acre of space to produce the same amount of power as ONE modern coal-fired power plant.
When you actually examine the facts surrounding "green energy" sources, it becomes clear that the goal of the lefties (Barack Obama chief among them) is not to provide for our future energy needs with "green technology". It is to render our power grid a shell of it's former self and reduce our power-generating capacity to cut us down to size. Obama may be a dyed in the wool socialist brought up worshipping the communist Frank Marshall Davis and he may be a total buffoon as president but one thing he ain't is stupid. He has access to the same facts (even more) about the total impracticality of "green energy" as the average American does. To paraphrase the Once and Fallen Messiah, the plan is to cripple our ability to generate enough power to meet our needs causing the cost of generating power to "necessarily skyrocket", thereby knocking America down a couple notches on the world stage because it just isn't fair that we "have five percent of the world's population and consume 25% of the world's resources". "Spreading the wealth around" on a global scale is what it's all about here. But the average Joe would never believe that a president of the United States would actually set out to cripple our ability to produce enough power. Couple this fact with the righteous indignation hurled in the direction of anyone who voices the undeniable truth that this Marxist has a stated policy of contempt for America's status as the most prosperous nation on earth and what do you have? You have 75% of the American public blind to the fact that we are purposely diminishing our ability to produce enough power because the leftists want it that way.
Consider these facts:
- We are sitting on THE LARGEST reserves of oil and natural gas in the world, yet Democrats consistently block every attempt to access our natural resources. China is furiously buying up oil leases while we are shutting down our oil exploration.
- Democrats also block every attempt to revive the nuclear power industry in this country even though nuclear power is one of the safest forms of power generation in the world. (Despite what the lefties will tell you, Three Mile Island was proof that nuclear safeguards on nuke power plants work, not the opposite.)
- Democrats consistently tout failed and failing "green" technologies as the way "to achieve energy independence" when the reverse is true: Tapping our tried, true and plentiful sources of energy is the way to achieve energy independence. Other forms of power generation will take shape when they are viable in the free market. Until then, we'll continue to have dangerous absurdities like collapsing wind turbine towers or simply absurd absurdities like the Government Motors "electric" car that runs on an electric motor powered by a battery charged by a four-cylinder gas motor.
What does this all mean? It means that Barack Obama and his merry band of leftists aren't just a gaggle of utter buffoons: They bave as their stated goal to diminish of America's status as a world power. After all (to paraphrase the ex-Messiah again) the people of Botswana and Namibia probably believe in Botswanan and Namibian exceptionalism as well. In other words, Barack doesn't believe that there is anything more exceptional about the United States than there is about any other country. Why should our power-generating capacity be any better than anyone else's? And why should we use more than the five percent of the world's resources our population deserves?
Want to end the decline in this country's power-generating capacity? End Barack Obama's (and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's and the multitude of other leftists) ability to have any influence on our energy policy: Boot them out of office!
Read more!
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Where's Algore When You Need Him?
As I write this, it's ten degrees outside with snow and 50 mile an hour winds. By morning we'll have upwards of a foot of snow on the ground that will be blowing around at 40-50 mph until midday. This winter has been the most brutal for the east coast with record snowfalls in New York City and FEET of snow in places like North Carolina and Georgia. Oklahoma's winter weather is nearly as brutal as it is in Iowa this winter and Oklahoma is 500 miles south of here. And this winter isn't nearly as bad out here in flyover country as LAST winter was.
Through all of this and everything we went through LAST winter, I can't help but wonder where Algore is. He's been strangely silent for the last couple of years and no one in the media -- not even Fox News -- has been able to get him to comment on this strange manifestation of "global warming". (Oh, excuse me, that's "global climate change" these days.)
Of course you have the lefty sycophants who echo the socialist party line that this extreme weather is proof positive that "climate change" is real. But anyone with a brain knows what a happy load of crap this is. Despite the lefty propaganda, there is actual scientific evidence that proves that the weather we are experiencing this winter is caused by events that are the exact OPPPOSITE of what the "global warming" lefties would have us believe. As difficult as this may be to understand, the sun -- which warms the earth -- is less active now and has been for the last few years. And -- SURPRISE -- an absence of activity on the surface of the sun manifests itself in cooler temperatures on earth.
Kind of funny how 35 years ago these same leftist nut cases were whining about the coming ice age. Their assertion back then was just the opposite -- that the dreaded gasses humans were generating as a result of their prosperity were going to shield us from the sun's rays and COOL the planet. Don't believe me: Look up Newsweek's 1975 cover about "The Coming Ice Age". Today the environazis are arguing the reverse of what they were arguing back when Algore was a pothead (who knows, maybe he still is). Which is it? I'd be eager to hear the former VP give a coherent answer to this one. But we all know how the lefty weasels are: These jackasses are entirely devoid of principle and will argue anything they think will help promote their anti-prosperity agenda.
The actual truth is this: These cycles have been happening since the dawn of time. It's just been in the last 50 years or so that folks like Algore have been trying to exploit them to advance their socialist agenda. It's time someone took the opportunity of winter of 2011 to find where he's hiding (probably in the palatial California mansion he purchased that will be underwater if his predictions about "climate change" come true), drag him out and ask him what he attributes Tulsa's unusual 18 inches of snow to.
Read more!
Through all of this and everything we went through LAST winter, I can't help but wonder where Algore is. He's been strangely silent for the last couple of years and no one in the media -- not even Fox News -- has been able to get him to comment on this strange manifestation of "global warming". (Oh, excuse me, that's "global climate change" these days.)
Of course you have the lefty sycophants who echo the socialist party line that this extreme weather is proof positive that "climate change" is real. But anyone with a brain knows what a happy load of crap this is. Despite the lefty propaganda, there is actual scientific evidence that proves that the weather we are experiencing this winter is caused by events that are the exact OPPPOSITE of what the "global warming" lefties would have us believe. As difficult as this may be to understand, the sun -- which warms the earth -- is less active now and has been for the last few years. And -- SURPRISE -- an absence of activity on the surface of the sun manifests itself in cooler temperatures on earth.
Kind of funny how 35 years ago these same leftist nut cases were whining about the coming ice age. Their assertion back then was just the opposite -- that the dreaded gasses humans were generating as a result of their prosperity were going to shield us from the sun's rays and COOL the planet. Don't believe me: Look up Newsweek's 1975 cover about "The Coming Ice Age". Today the environazis are arguing the reverse of what they were arguing back when Algore was a pothead (who knows, maybe he still is). Which is it? I'd be eager to hear the former VP give a coherent answer to this one. But we all know how the lefty weasels are: These jackasses are entirely devoid of principle and will argue anything they think will help promote their anti-prosperity agenda.
The actual truth is this: These cycles have been happening since the dawn of time. It's just been in the last 50 years or so that folks like Algore have been trying to exploit them to advance their socialist agenda. It's time someone took the opportunity of winter of 2011 to find where he's hiding (probably in the palatial California mansion he purchased that will be underwater if his predictions about "climate change" come true), drag him out and ask him what he attributes Tulsa's unusual 18 inches of snow to.
Read more!
Monday, January 31, 2011
FLORIDA JUDGE RULES OBAMACARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Judge Roger Vinson, a Florida federal judge, today ruled Obamacare is unconstitutional, restoring my faith that at least one judge has a firm grasp of what his job is -- to determine if laws passed by the legislative and judicial branches square with the U.S. Constitution. In looking at Obamacare, the only conclusion you could come to is that it doesn't and that is exactly what jusdge Vincent found, throwing out the whole thing on the basis that the individual mandate renders the whole stinking pile of garbage worthless:
The Kos Kooks and every other hard leftist, including some "Constitutional scholars" (But then The Messiah was sold to the masses on the basis that he was a "Constitutional scholar", wasn't he?) are going nuts over this ruling precisely because it is rock-solid and obviously wirtten by a mature, studious jurist as opposed to the sixth-grade intellects The Once but Fallen Messiah appointed to the highest court in the land.
It doesn't take a Constitutional scholar or a studious jurist to tell you that this law is no good (aside from the utter unconstitutionality of it): All it takes is a little common sense:
The next step is for the U.S. Senate to provide another nail in the coffin of the ex-Messaih's crown jewel by voting with the House to repeal this horrendous monstrosity.
Read more!
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.This one sentence, on page 76 of the 78-page ruling sums up a well-written opinion that quotes from James Madison, the Federalist Papers, our Constitution and even The Messiah himself who at one time said he saw no need for the individual mandate then turned around and helped hi co-conspirators in the House and Senate construct a Rube Goldberg contraption of a law passed under the cover of darkness, that had as a key component the individual mandate that in the end helped kill the law.
The Kos Kooks and every other hard leftist, including some "Constitutional scholars" (But then The Messiah was sold to the masses on the basis that he was a "Constitutional scholar", wasn't he?) are going nuts over this ruling precisely because it is rock-solid and obviously wirtten by a mature, studious jurist as opposed to the sixth-grade intellects The Once but Fallen Messiah appointed to the highest court in the land.
It doesn't take a Constitutional scholar or a studious jurist to tell you that this law is no good (aside from the utter unconstitutionality of it): All it takes is a little common sense:
- The Commie libs named this law the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" and the rule of thumb that applies to every other commie-lib concieved law applies here: To figure out what a commie-lib law actually does, apply the exact opposite of what the name says. This law protects no patients and drives health care costs up for the majority to pay for health care for a few -- a few who are already covered by other social programs.
- Repealing this law will "cost" $200+ billion dollars. More poppycock (or poopy cock as the case may be). You're going to commit to spending (conservatively) $1 trillion over ten years and somehow NOT spending that money will "cost"? How absurd is that?
The next step is for the U.S. Senate to provide another nail in the coffin of the ex-Messaih's crown jewel by voting with the House to repeal this horrendous monstrosity.
Read more!
Monday, January 10, 2011
THE 21ST CENTURY RULE OF REPORTING: FIRST, YOU LIE
The primary rule of what passes for journalism these days appears to be: first, you lie.
This past weekend, the media showered shame upon itself by adhering rigidly to this rule, and to almost no rubric that could conceivably be considered “responsible reporting.” Even the “conservative” FoxNewsChannel--in the person of Geraldo Rivera unendingly blaming Sarah Palin for the actions of what we now know to be, in the opinion of the FBI director himself, a lone lunatic with a grudge against a specific member of Congress—toed the “Tea Party terror” line.
Within moments of the initial reports, “journalists” everywhere were speculating on the motivations of a suspect they yet knew nothing about. True to form, rather than simply go to Google and find out who the shooter was, what he thought about, what he himself considered the most important thing he could teach, they merely reached for the nearest and most recent template and slapped it over the event, neatly cutting away everything that didn’t fit—particularly the uncomfortable truth.
Once I had the name of the suspect, it was easy to find his deranged Youtube postings, stark texts addressing his reality-free musings, some visuals that immediately led away from—not toward—Tea Party culpability, and helpful sidebars telling us his favorite books included Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. Moreover, the clearest thing about his rantings is that his obsession is with something he calls “conscience dreaming.” There is nothing political or ideological in his writings, but there is some discussion of “government,” “currency,” and the Constitution, which he says cannot be trusted because of “ratification.”
Though some have jumped on his talk of not accepting currency not backed by gold or silver and assigned him to some form of Ron Paulism, there is no “there” there. First, he states that “I will not trust in God,” indicating (along with his apparent outrage at having received a mini-Bible when he went to a military recruiting station) that he has no religious commitment or confidence in what we would consider to be “currency.” Second, his talk of “currency” is tied up in bizarre babblings about grammar and literacy, stating that the majority of people in the 8th district (that of both he and Congresswoman Giffords) are “illiterate,” indicating that he may have read some of the literature on information as currency and not understood it at all, fitting it instead into his paranoid mental illness and deeming the government an agent of “brainwashing” and deception.
Having seen the mind of the suspect myself, I looked back at the media, waiting in vain for someone to tell us about “conscience dreaming” and information as currency, to address the obvious fact that this was a 22-year old man with a textbook psychosis. Waiting with increasing impatience for someone to say what was evidently true: that he had practically stalked this Congress member since at least 2007, when he appeared at another “Congress on your corner” event to ask her a question. He did not like her response (perhaps because his question was rambling, incoherent and essentially meaningless to anyone who did not live in the shooter’s own head) and told his friend that he thought her “unintelligent.” Long before there was a Sarah Palin, a map with targets, a Tea Party—long before all of this, Jared Loughner had decided that Gabby Giffords was unworthy of her position in Congress.
Yet, all across the spectrum, politicians, pundits, reporters, and analysts one after another whined about “toning down the rhetoric,” implying that somehow political discourse could have caused this young man to buy a legal gun (passing the FBI background check with no problem, since he had never actually done anything violent before) and take it to the Safeway and shoot a member of Congress in the head to satisfy the voices in his own head, the “conscious dreams” he had deliberately cultivated.
Having studied both political violence and mass murder, I found the false connection more than curious. These were not fools making this unfounded link. These were people who should know better, people who should know what political violence is. Moreover, half the country should by now be able to recognize the signs of mental illness, the patterns of mass killing, given the ubiquity of books, television shows, and internet literature that explains it to us, both as real events and in fictional form. The two are not the same, and it doesn’t take a “political analyst” to know it.
Remind me, please, of how many mass murders have been (you’ll excuse the expression) “triggered” by “heated political rhetoric.” I don’t recall them. The mass murders with which I am familiar seem to be triggered by some event that has meaning only to the mind of the murderer. Their precipitating events are personal, not political. What prompted Charlie Whitman to climb the University of Texas tower and kill fourteen people after first murdering his mother and his wife? After years of emotional and mental disturbance, and after a series of personal failures, his self-control simply snapped. Whitman was troubled, certainly mentally ill, and he had actually described his fantasy of climbing the tower and shooting from it to a number of people, none of whom took him seriously (including a University psychiatrist.) He was not revved up by the political “climate” in Texas in 1966, whatever it may have been.
The largest mass murder in American history until 2007 was the massacre at Luby’s restaurant in Killeen, Texas, where George Jo Hennard, Jr., drove his truck through the glass window of the restaurant and began firing, eventually killing 23 people and wounding 20 more. He shouted “This is what Bell County has done to me!” though no one ever explained what he could have meant by that. While there may have been a political threat to him in his head from the county in which he lived, he was not motivated by some climate of “heated political rhetoric.”
The one instance liberals have to point to is the Oklahoma City bombing, which appears to have been the first time we find the suggestion that violence is the fault of talk radio. After Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building, President Clinton (never one to miss a chance to score a political point) essentially laid the blame at the feet of Rush Limbaugh and all of talk radio. Yet, inconveniently, there was never any evidence that McVeigh had listened to talk radio. His claimed reason for the systematic destruction of the federal building (which he embarked on only after discarding a plan to individually murder specific government officials) was outrage at the massacre of the Branch Davidian religious cult and the killing of Vicky Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992.
So now, once again, the media has run with the most attractive narrative—it’s all the fault of the Tea Party.
We can see why. After all, to those who have invested all their energy in a theory, everything must fit into it. The media’s most recent total enemy has been the hydra-headed monster of Sarah Palin and all those in the Tea Party movement. Any terrible thing that happens must be their fault. In this instance, we have an evil thing, a shooting. The victim is a Democrat (albeit a Democrat who has been a member of the Blue Dog coalition and who recently voted against the continuing leadership of Nancy Pelosi). All bad things come from the Tea Party, and the opponent of the Democratic Party is the Tea Party; therefore, this must have come from the Tea Party.
So the media immediately set about finding—not evidence for the template—but simply anyone who would say the words out loud, so that they could “report” them.
And the world of politics did not disappoint.
It was breathlessly noted that Sarah Palin had a map on her website that “targeted” this very Congresswoman’s district with a cross-hairs symbol as a district that Tea Partiers should try to win in the election. (Never mind that the Daily Kos did the same thing, to the same member of Congress (though for different reasons), only with a bullseye instead of cross-hairs. Makes all the difference.) The state of Arizona was painted as a place of high anxiety over immigration, and there was a period in the afternoon when media outlets mused aloud whether the shooter might have had something against immigrants. The notations in his Youtube video about people being “illiterate” were used to buttress this bogus notion.
The truths that the media have refused to tell are as follows:
From everything we can see, Jared Lee Loughner was seriously mentally ill. He had a long-standing grudge against Congresswoman Giffords. One of his favorite books was Mein Kampf, and Giffords was Jewish; we do not at this time know whether this matters. He smoked pot. He did not pass the drug test when he tried to join the military. He was thrown out of college because the administration felt he was dangerous and barred him from returning until he would be mentally evaluated, which he never was. He was 22 years old, the precise age when serious schizophrenia most often manifests itself. His thoughts are incoherent. His politics are, if anything, left of center, but nevertheless devoid of a serious ideology recognizable to a sane partisan of any stripe.
To those who want to know why such violence would erupt in Arizona, who are wondering whether it is the anti-immigrant sentiment that drives such violence, the answer to “why Arizona?” is in fact not complex. It was Arizona because that happens to be where this lunatic lived, just down the street from the Safeway. It was the place Gabby Giffords represents, and the lunatic didn’t like her. It was, quite simply, where the intersection of the perpetrator and the victim took place.
It could have been anywhere.
It could have been, for example, Pennsylvania. In Amish country. In the community of Nickle Mines, in 2006. Where Charles Carl Roberts IV took the lives of five Amish girls in the schoolhouse, after taking the entire school hostage (save those who frustrated him at the outset by successfully running away.) But Roberts acted without the propulsion of talk radio, without a “climate of hate,” without “heated political rhetoric.” Against the kindest, least inflammatory people in America, a crazy man who had never before hurt anyone chose to destroy his own life and those of children and families in a community he lived within (though he was not a member of the Order.) Because of his own internal monologue. Because of his own darkness.
Because of his own evil.
But the media does not recognize evil. And they only recognize mental illness when it fits their template, when someone kills American soldiers while shrieking “Allahu Akbar,” when they can use it to excuse deviance and destruction.
The Ft. Hood shooting, we were told (another event not motivated by the heated rhetoric of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, by the way, but inconveniently perpetrated by a member of a faith the media seeks to protect) was an occasion to be careful, to reassess, not to jump to conclusions or blame any larger group. This, despite the fact that the shooter, Major Hassan (and as soon as the name was known to the media, the media held it back a while to be extra super sure not to inflame the passions of the public) was connected to terrorist networks, knew and corresponded with terrorists, evangelized a particularly anti-American form of Islam, and had evidently planned the event for a while. But he, the template told us, was not evil. And he was not a terrorist. He was a disturbed lone wolf and should be understood.
Now we know that the Arizona shooter had an occult shrine in his backyard, complete with a replica human skull. But he cannot be evil. He cannot be a member of a diverse religious community. He must be an angry white male, a Republican, a Tea Partier. Anything else is unacceptable. Because it is not usable for the purposes to which the media and the Administration are about to put it.
Which brings us to part two. After the lie, we come to the use of the lie.
Democratic strategist Mark Penn recently reminisced wistfully about the public support that came to President Clinton after the Oklahoma City bombing, opining that President Obama “needs” something similar to get the country back on his side.
Well, aren’t they lucky. Here it is. As Rahm Emanuel famously said, one shouldn’t let a good crisis go to waste.
After being beaten in the election, the power-grabbing party has been looking for a way to continue in their encroachment on the rights of the people. In the days to come, I have no doubt that they will bring back their drive to implement a “Fairness Doctrine” in an effort to control public political speech they don’t like. But this time, having a media that continues to link “bad” speech with conservatism and murder with “bad” speech, the Democrats in the Senate will be able to link the enforced balance they have been pushing with a censorship that they will deny is censorship.
To the contrary, they will argue, there are types of speech that we already regulate—libel and slander, advertising claims, and (though increasingly less enthusiastically) obscenity and pornography. One does not have, they will piously remind us, the right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater. (And, yes, they will no doubt forget that the original court ruling is that you may not falsely shout fire; if the theater is on fire, you may shout all you like.) On their high horses, they will tell us that neither has one the right to shout “you lie,” or “socialist” or “fascism” in a crowded political arena. Such language, they will insist, is inciting to riot, it pollutes the discourse, it endangers the republic—and it leads to murder.
Just as disapproval of personal behavior has become a form of “hate,” so, I believe, we will find that the words one uses to disapprove—or even merely to accurately describe the disreputable--will soon be deemed “hate speech.”
The other opportunity this affords the administration is to jump in quickly with a gun control bill of some kind, perhaps the very bill sponsored by Congressman Bobby Rush that has been languishing in the House during the last session, HR 45. (Trust me; it’s bad. Look it up.)
Once again, a tragedy will prompt government officials (especially those of a progressive and/or Democratic leaning) to attempt to regulate the world in ways that would never have had any effect on the tragedy that gets their attention.
More gun control would not have stopped this. Loughner broke few laws before he broke so many at once, and there are none possible that could revoke the Second Amendment rights of someone whose interactions with law enforcement had all been lawfully dismissed. None of his obviously lunatic ramblings were in a venue reachable by lawful investigations. It is unfortunate but unavoidable that we cannot pre-empt the non-violent mentally ill loner on his way to becoming a spree killer. It is not illegal to hold odd viewpoints, nor can it be in a free society. It is not illegal to subscribe to conspiracy theories, or to make others uncomfortable, or to have a strange personality. Were it so, there would not be enough jails or mental institutions to hold all the Americans that would deserve places in them.
Yet the proponents of the nanny state will no doubt try. And the media will obediently perpetuate the myth that tighter controls on everyone are needed to stop a few from violently obeying voices only they can hear, following paths of twisted logic only they can understand.
And, saddest of all, nothing they do will help anyone with mental illness stop himself from snapping. Nothing they do will make it possible to prevent an event that seems inevitable, because it will come at a time and a place no one but the spree killer can guess. And when it happens again, the media will once more reach for the most recent enemy, the most convenient scapegoat, the easiest lie to tell.
And the madmen will continue to appear from time to time, no matter what our “rhetoric” becomes, no matter how famous or ordinary the victims, no matter how many, how few, how old, or how young.
The media will find a story to tell, as truthful and trustworthy as the voices in Jared Lee Loughner’s head.
Read more!
This past weekend, the media showered shame upon itself by adhering rigidly to this rule, and to almost no rubric that could conceivably be considered “responsible reporting.” Even the “conservative” FoxNewsChannel--in the person of Geraldo Rivera unendingly blaming Sarah Palin for the actions of what we now know to be, in the opinion of the FBI director himself, a lone lunatic with a grudge against a specific member of Congress—toed the “Tea Party terror” line.
Within moments of the initial reports, “journalists” everywhere were speculating on the motivations of a suspect they yet knew nothing about. True to form, rather than simply go to Google and find out who the shooter was, what he thought about, what he himself considered the most important thing he could teach, they merely reached for the nearest and most recent template and slapped it over the event, neatly cutting away everything that didn’t fit—particularly the uncomfortable truth.
Once I had the name of the suspect, it was easy to find his deranged Youtube postings, stark texts addressing his reality-free musings, some visuals that immediately led away from—not toward—Tea Party culpability, and helpful sidebars telling us his favorite books included Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. Moreover, the clearest thing about his rantings is that his obsession is with something he calls “conscience dreaming.” There is nothing political or ideological in his writings, but there is some discussion of “government,” “currency,” and the Constitution, which he says cannot be trusted because of “ratification.”
Though some have jumped on his talk of not accepting currency not backed by gold or silver and assigned him to some form of Ron Paulism, there is no “there” there. First, he states that “I will not trust in God,” indicating (along with his apparent outrage at having received a mini-Bible when he went to a military recruiting station) that he has no religious commitment or confidence in what we would consider to be “currency.” Second, his talk of “currency” is tied up in bizarre babblings about grammar and literacy, stating that the majority of people in the 8th district (that of both he and Congresswoman Giffords) are “illiterate,” indicating that he may have read some of the literature on information as currency and not understood it at all, fitting it instead into his paranoid mental illness and deeming the government an agent of “brainwashing” and deception.
Having seen the mind of the suspect myself, I looked back at the media, waiting in vain for someone to tell us about “conscience dreaming” and information as currency, to address the obvious fact that this was a 22-year old man with a textbook psychosis. Waiting with increasing impatience for someone to say what was evidently true: that he had practically stalked this Congress member since at least 2007, when he appeared at another “Congress on your corner” event to ask her a question. He did not like her response (perhaps because his question was rambling, incoherent and essentially meaningless to anyone who did not live in the shooter’s own head) and told his friend that he thought her “unintelligent.” Long before there was a Sarah Palin, a map with targets, a Tea Party—long before all of this, Jared Loughner had decided that Gabby Giffords was unworthy of her position in Congress.
Yet, all across the spectrum, politicians, pundits, reporters, and analysts one after another whined about “toning down the rhetoric,” implying that somehow political discourse could have caused this young man to buy a legal gun (passing the FBI background check with no problem, since he had never actually done anything violent before) and take it to the Safeway and shoot a member of Congress in the head to satisfy the voices in his own head, the “conscious dreams” he had deliberately cultivated.
Having studied both political violence and mass murder, I found the false connection more than curious. These were not fools making this unfounded link. These were people who should know better, people who should know what political violence is. Moreover, half the country should by now be able to recognize the signs of mental illness, the patterns of mass killing, given the ubiquity of books, television shows, and internet literature that explains it to us, both as real events and in fictional form. The two are not the same, and it doesn’t take a “political analyst” to know it.
Remind me, please, of how many mass murders have been (you’ll excuse the expression) “triggered” by “heated political rhetoric.” I don’t recall them. The mass murders with which I am familiar seem to be triggered by some event that has meaning only to the mind of the murderer. Their precipitating events are personal, not political. What prompted Charlie Whitman to climb the University of Texas tower and kill fourteen people after first murdering his mother and his wife? After years of emotional and mental disturbance, and after a series of personal failures, his self-control simply snapped. Whitman was troubled, certainly mentally ill, and he had actually described his fantasy of climbing the tower and shooting from it to a number of people, none of whom took him seriously (including a University psychiatrist.) He was not revved up by the political “climate” in Texas in 1966, whatever it may have been.
The largest mass murder in American history until 2007 was the massacre at Luby’s restaurant in Killeen, Texas, where George Jo Hennard, Jr., drove his truck through the glass window of the restaurant and began firing, eventually killing 23 people and wounding 20 more. He shouted “This is what Bell County has done to me!” though no one ever explained what he could have meant by that. While there may have been a political threat to him in his head from the county in which he lived, he was not motivated by some climate of “heated political rhetoric.”
The one instance liberals have to point to is the Oklahoma City bombing, which appears to have been the first time we find the suggestion that violence is the fault of talk radio. After Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building, President Clinton (never one to miss a chance to score a political point) essentially laid the blame at the feet of Rush Limbaugh and all of talk radio. Yet, inconveniently, there was never any evidence that McVeigh had listened to talk radio. His claimed reason for the systematic destruction of the federal building (which he embarked on only after discarding a plan to individually murder specific government officials) was outrage at the massacre of the Branch Davidian religious cult and the killing of Vicky Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in 1992.
So now, once again, the media has run with the most attractive narrative—it’s all the fault of the Tea Party.
We can see why. After all, to those who have invested all their energy in a theory, everything must fit into it. The media’s most recent total enemy has been the hydra-headed monster of Sarah Palin and all those in the Tea Party movement. Any terrible thing that happens must be their fault. In this instance, we have an evil thing, a shooting. The victim is a Democrat (albeit a Democrat who has been a member of the Blue Dog coalition and who recently voted against the continuing leadership of Nancy Pelosi). All bad things come from the Tea Party, and the opponent of the Democratic Party is the Tea Party; therefore, this must have come from the Tea Party.
So the media immediately set about finding—not evidence for the template—but simply anyone who would say the words out loud, so that they could “report” them.
And the world of politics did not disappoint.
It was breathlessly noted that Sarah Palin had a map on her website that “targeted” this very Congresswoman’s district with a cross-hairs symbol as a district that Tea Partiers should try to win in the election. (Never mind that the Daily Kos did the same thing, to the same member of Congress (though for different reasons), only with a bullseye instead of cross-hairs. Makes all the difference.) The state of Arizona was painted as a place of high anxiety over immigration, and there was a period in the afternoon when media outlets mused aloud whether the shooter might have had something against immigrants. The notations in his Youtube video about people being “illiterate” were used to buttress this bogus notion.
The truths that the media have refused to tell are as follows:
From everything we can see, Jared Lee Loughner was seriously mentally ill. He had a long-standing grudge against Congresswoman Giffords. One of his favorite books was Mein Kampf, and Giffords was Jewish; we do not at this time know whether this matters. He smoked pot. He did not pass the drug test when he tried to join the military. He was thrown out of college because the administration felt he was dangerous and barred him from returning until he would be mentally evaluated, which he never was. He was 22 years old, the precise age when serious schizophrenia most often manifests itself. His thoughts are incoherent. His politics are, if anything, left of center, but nevertheless devoid of a serious ideology recognizable to a sane partisan of any stripe.
To those who want to know why such violence would erupt in Arizona, who are wondering whether it is the anti-immigrant sentiment that drives such violence, the answer to “why Arizona?” is in fact not complex. It was Arizona because that happens to be where this lunatic lived, just down the street from the Safeway. It was the place Gabby Giffords represents, and the lunatic didn’t like her. It was, quite simply, where the intersection of the perpetrator and the victim took place.
It could have been anywhere.
It could have been, for example, Pennsylvania. In Amish country. In the community of Nickle Mines, in 2006. Where Charles Carl Roberts IV took the lives of five Amish girls in the schoolhouse, after taking the entire school hostage (save those who frustrated him at the outset by successfully running away.) But Roberts acted without the propulsion of talk radio, without a “climate of hate,” without “heated political rhetoric.” Against the kindest, least inflammatory people in America, a crazy man who had never before hurt anyone chose to destroy his own life and those of children and families in a community he lived within (though he was not a member of the Order.) Because of his own internal monologue. Because of his own darkness.
Because of his own evil.
But the media does not recognize evil. And they only recognize mental illness when it fits their template, when someone kills American soldiers while shrieking “Allahu Akbar,” when they can use it to excuse deviance and destruction.
The Ft. Hood shooting, we were told (another event not motivated by the heated rhetoric of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, by the way, but inconveniently perpetrated by a member of a faith the media seeks to protect) was an occasion to be careful, to reassess, not to jump to conclusions or blame any larger group. This, despite the fact that the shooter, Major Hassan (and as soon as the name was known to the media, the media held it back a while to be extra super sure not to inflame the passions of the public) was connected to terrorist networks, knew and corresponded with terrorists, evangelized a particularly anti-American form of Islam, and had evidently planned the event for a while. But he, the template told us, was not evil. And he was not a terrorist. He was a disturbed lone wolf and should be understood.
Now we know that the Arizona shooter had an occult shrine in his backyard, complete with a replica human skull. But he cannot be evil. He cannot be a member of a diverse religious community. He must be an angry white male, a Republican, a Tea Partier. Anything else is unacceptable. Because it is not usable for the purposes to which the media and the Administration are about to put it.
Which brings us to part two. After the lie, we come to the use of the lie.
Democratic strategist Mark Penn recently reminisced wistfully about the public support that came to President Clinton after the Oklahoma City bombing, opining that President Obama “needs” something similar to get the country back on his side.
Well, aren’t they lucky. Here it is. As Rahm Emanuel famously said, one shouldn’t let a good crisis go to waste.
After being beaten in the election, the power-grabbing party has been looking for a way to continue in their encroachment on the rights of the people. In the days to come, I have no doubt that they will bring back their drive to implement a “Fairness Doctrine” in an effort to control public political speech they don’t like. But this time, having a media that continues to link “bad” speech with conservatism and murder with “bad” speech, the Democrats in the Senate will be able to link the enforced balance they have been pushing with a censorship that they will deny is censorship.
To the contrary, they will argue, there are types of speech that we already regulate—libel and slander, advertising claims, and (though increasingly less enthusiastically) obscenity and pornography. One does not have, they will piously remind us, the right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater. (And, yes, they will no doubt forget that the original court ruling is that you may not falsely shout fire; if the theater is on fire, you may shout all you like.) On their high horses, they will tell us that neither has one the right to shout “you lie,” or “socialist” or “fascism” in a crowded political arena. Such language, they will insist, is inciting to riot, it pollutes the discourse, it endangers the republic—and it leads to murder.
Just as disapproval of personal behavior has become a form of “hate,” so, I believe, we will find that the words one uses to disapprove—or even merely to accurately describe the disreputable--will soon be deemed “hate speech.”
The other opportunity this affords the administration is to jump in quickly with a gun control bill of some kind, perhaps the very bill sponsored by Congressman Bobby Rush that has been languishing in the House during the last session, HR 45. (Trust me; it’s bad. Look it up.)
Once again, a tragedy will prompt government officials (especially those of a progressive and/or Democratic leaning) to attempt to regulate the world in ways that would never have had any effect on the tragedy that gets their attention.
More gun control would not have stopped this. Loughner broke few laws before he broke so many at once, and there are none possible that could revoke the Second Amendment rights of someone whose interactions with law enforcement had all been lawfully dismissed. None of his obviously lunatic ramblings were in a venue reachable by lawful investigations. It is unfortunate but unavoidable that we cannot pre-empt the non-violent mentally ill loner on his way to becoming a spree killer. It is not illegal to hold odd viewpoints, nor can it be in a free society. It is not illegal to subscribe to conspiracy theories, or to make others uncomfortable, or to have a strange personality. Were it so, there would not be enough jails or mental institutions to hold all the Americans that would deserve places in them.
Yet the proponents of the nanny state will no doubt try. And the media will obediently perpetuate the myth that tighter controls on everyone are needed to stop a few from violently obeying voices only they can hear, following paths of twisted logic only they can understand.
And, saddest of all, nothing they do will help anyone with mental illness stop himself from snapping. Nothing they do will make it possible to prevent an event that seems inevitable, because it will come at a time and a place no one but the spree killer can guess. And when it happens again, the media will once more reach for the most recent enemy, the most convenient scapegoat, the easiest lie to tell.
And the madmen will continue to appear from time to time, no matter what our “rhetoric” becomes, no matter how famous or ordinary the victims, no matter how many, how few, how old, or how young.
The media will find a story to tell, as truthful and trustworthy as the voices in Jared Lee Loughner’s head.
Read more!
Monday, December 06, 2010
Motor Trend's Enviro-Wacko Idiocy: Chevy Volt Car of the Year
Yes. it cost twice as much as a similar vehicle and runs on premium gas. No, it's not a high-end BMW or Mercedes. It's the "electric" Chevy Volt and it's Motor Trend's 2011 car of the year.
Electric cars don't work, they've never worked and there's no electric car that proves this better than the Chevy Volt -- the "electric" car Motor Trend's editors are slobbering all over. "101 mph and 127 mpg" is what the headline on their car of the year issue is screaming this month. What a happy load of crap.
Did you think the Volt was actually an electric car? That's a perfectly understandable mistake. It isn't. What the Volt actually is is a gas car with an engine that runs a generator which charges a battery which powers the car rather than just using the gas engine to power the wheels. So it uses one source of energy -- gas -- to create another source of energy -- electricity. Perfectly idiotic and inefficient. Imagine the folks at Trek or some other bicycle manufacturer producing a bike where the pedals turn not a gear set that turns the rear wheel but instead powers a tiny generator hooked to a motor that powers the rear wheel and you have an idea of the idiocy of the Volt.
So the "electric" Volt is really a gas Volt (might as well call it the Fart). As far as the fuel efficiency of the Volt's gas motor goes, it's no more efficient than your typical sub-compact beater like the Chevy Aveo -- 37-42 mpg from what I've been able to gather. The BS about the "127 mpg" lies in the fact that Volt cheerleaders like MT dump the car's minuscule all-electric cruising range -- 25 - 50 miles, or less than 15% of it's total cruising range -- into the total mileage figures. The simple fact of the matter is that this car spends 85% or better of it's time running a gas motor that gets about 40 mpg. In other words, if you don't actually drive a Volt like most normal people drive their cars, the Volt is an "electric" car. But for a Volt buyer who actually has to get to work and back home, then get to the store, then get junior to basketball practice, then get back home again all in one day, the Volt is a gas car that is a highly sophisticated, better looking Chevy Aveo or Toyota Yaris for better than twice the price.
Did I say better than twice the price? Why yes I did. The 4-passenger Chevy Volt costs more than $40,000. Even with the government's $7500 welfare payment (I mean tax credit) it costs damn near $33,000. Gonna be a whole lot of families buying these, aren't there? Compare this to a typical minivan that comes loaded with a dual screen DVD system, dual zone automatic climate control, leather seats, a great sound system and a host of other amenities, and holds up to eight people for well under $40,000. Which is the more practical vehicle? Sure the minivan only gets about 20 mpg but try throwing six people and all their luggage into ONE Chevy Volt for a trip to grandma's house in Pasadena from out here in flyover country. Ain't gonna happen, bud. This kind of trip takes ONE minivan that gets about 25 mpg on the highway. It would take TWO Volts (minimum) at 42 mpg.Where's the savings there? And which is the more environmentally friendly of the two choices? Obviously the one that carries all the people and luggage on four tires with one gas tank and one motor. Which means that the impracticality of this "car of the year" reduces it to a novelty item for rich Hollywood types to drive as a testament to their enviro-Nazi bonafides. The same could be said for a bunch of slobbering enviro-nazi car editors -- the Volt is, in fact, a novelty item that a bunch of "car editors" on a pilgrimage to An Inconvenient Truth land can plaster on their battle flag to make enviro-Nazis think that all car magazine editors aren't evil incarnate.
And what of the dependability and durability of the Volt? It's pretty easy for a car magazine to flog the hell out of an "electric" car for a few days and pronounce it fit for duty. How's this thing going to hold up in 50,000 or 100,000 or even 150,000 miles? We already know that current hybrids require expensive battery replacements after 100,000 miles or less. We're talking five or six grand a pop -- more than what it costs to replace an internal combustion engine. And if you maintain your gas-powered car you can go for literally hundreds of thousands of miles without an engine rebuild or replacement. How well do you suppose a battery that is potentially in charge mode 85% of the time is going to hold up after years of use?
Verdict (as if you couldn't guess): The Volt is a moronic vehicle designed for morons. It's just the latest example of the idiocy of premature "green" technology that should have been stillborn (those wind turbines that require a fleet of trucks and an armada of pilot vehicles to get them to their destination are another). This type of dysfunctional technology (an "electric" car being powered indirectly by a gas engine, for God's sake) is a perfect example of what you get when the government mandates and incentivizes stupidity in the name of "saving the planet". Do you honestly think the Volt would stand a chance in a free marketplace -- without giving incentives to offset a huge chunk of the bloated cost? (By the way, did you know that the feds have orders in for tens of thousands of them? Nothing like the feds purchasing tens of thousands of these gas-fueled generators to skew the sales figures.) And while Motor Trend is heaping car of the year honors on this Rube Goldberg contraption that uses gas to power an engine that runs a generator that simultaneously recharges batteries and powers the car, the federal government is blocking nearly all attempts to boost our energy independence using the hundreds of billions of barrels of domestic oil and natural gas we are awash in. Meanwhile, our arch enemy China is buying up all the offshore oil leases it can get its hands on while our president places a seven-year moratorium on our own offshore oil drilling causing drilling rigs to take off for other parts of the world to extract oil for China and Venezuela and other enemy countries. Leading the charge in this crazy back-asswards scenario, you have a bunch of nuts at a car magazine championing a by-product of the politicians attempts to make us all victims of their stupidity. Sorry Motor Trend, I won't be buying your idiotic magazine anymore but maybe you'll be able to pick up a couple envirno-Nazi subscribers.
Read more!
Electric cars don't work, they've never worked and there's no electric car that proves this better than the Chevy Volt -- the "electric" car Motor Trend's editors are slobbering all over. "101 mph and 127 mpg" is what the headline on their car of the year issue is screaming this month. What a happy load of crap.
Did you think the Volt was actually an electric car? That's a perfectly understandable mistake. It isn't. What the Volt actually is is a gas car with an engine that runs a generator which charges a battery which powers the car rather than just using the gas engine to power the wheels. So it uses one source of energy -- gas -- to create another source of energy -- electricity. Perfectly idiotic and inefficient. Imagine the folks at Trek or some other bicycle manufacturer producing a bike where the pedals turn not a gear set that turns the rear wheel but instead powers a tiny generator hooked to a motor that powers the rear wheel and you have an idea of the idiocy of the Volt.
So the "electric" Volt is really a gas Volt (might as well call it the Fart). As far as the fuel efficiency of the Volt's gas motor goes, it's no more efficient than your typical sub-compact beater like the Chevy Aveo -- 37-42 mpg from what I've been able to gather. The BS about the "127 mpg" lies in the fact that Volt cheerleaders like MT dump the car's minuscule all-electric cruising range -- 25 - 50 miles, or less than 15% of it's total cruising range -- into the total mileage figures. The simple fact of the matter is that this car spends 85% or better of it's time running a gas motor that gets about 40 mpg. In other words, if you don't actually drive a Volt like most normal people drive their cars, the Volt is an "electric" car. But for a Volt buyer who actually has to get to work and back home, then get to the store, then get junior to basketball practice, then get back home again all in one day, the Volt is a gas car that is a highly sophisticated, better looking Chevy Aveo or Toyota Yaris for better than twice the price.
Did I say better than twice the price? Why yes I did. The 4-passenger Chevy Volt costs more than $40,000. Even with the government's $7500 welfare payment (I mean tax credit) it costs damn near $33,000. Gonna be a whole lot of families buying these, aren't there? Compare this to a typical minivan that comes loaded with a dual screen DVD system, dual zone automatic climate control, leather seats, a great sound system and a host of other amenities, and holds up to eight people for well under $40,000. Which is the more practical vehicle? Sure the minivan only gets about 20 mpg but try throwing six people and all their luggage into ONE Chevy Volt for a trip to grandma's house in Pasadena from out here in flyover country. Ain't gonna happen, bud. This kind of trip takes ONE minivan that gets about 25 mpg on the highway. It would take TWO Volts (minimum) at 42 mpg.Where's the savings there? And which is the more environmentally friendly of the two choices? Obviously the one that carries all the people and luggage on four tires with one gas tank and one motor. Which means that the impracticality of this "car of the year" reduces it to a novelty item for rich Hollywood types to drive as a testament to their enviro-Nazi bonafides. The same could be said for a bunch of slobbering enviro-nazi car editors -- the Volt is, in fact, a novelty item that a bunch of "car editors" on a pilgrimage to An Inconvenient Truth land can plaster on their battle flag to make enviro-Nazis think that all car magazine editors aren't evil incarnate.
And what of the dependability and durability of the Volt? It's pretty easy for a car magazine to flog the hell out of an "electric" car for a few days and pronounce it fit for duty. How's this thing going to hold up in 50,000 or 100,000 or even 150,000 miles? We already know that current hybrids require expensive battery replacements after 100,000 miles or less. We're talking five or six grand a pop -- more than what it costs to replace an internal combustion engine. And if you maintain your gas-powered car you can go for literally hundreds of thousands of miles without an engine rebuild or replacement. How well do you suppose a battery that is potentially in charge mode 85% of the time is going to hold up after years of use?
Verdict (as if you couldn't guess): The Volt is a moronic vehicle designed for morons. It's just the latest example of the idiocy of premature "green" technology that should have been stillborn (those wind turbines that require a fleet of trucks and an armada of pilot vehicles to get them to their destination are another). This type of dysfunctional technology (an "electric" car being powered indirectly by a gas engine, for God's sake) is a perfect example of what you get when the government mandates and incentivizes stupidity in the name of "saving the planet". Do you honestly think the Volt would stand a chance in a free marketplace -- without giving incentives to offset a huge chunk of the bloated cost? (By the way, did you know that the feds have orders in for tens of thousands of them? Nothing like the feds purchasing tens of thousands of these gas-fueled generators to skew the sales figures.) And while Motor Trend is heaping car of the year honors on this Rube Goldberg contraption that uses gas to power an engine that runs a generator that simultaneously recharges batteries and powers the car, the federal government is blocking nearly all attempts to boost our energy independence using the hundreds of billions of barrels of domestic oil and natural gas we are awash in. Meanwhile, our arch enemy China is buying up all the offshore oil leases it can get its hands on while our president places a seven-year moratorium on our own offshore oil drilling causing drilling rigs to take off for other parts of the world to extract oil for China and Venezuela and other enemy countries. Leading the charge in this crazy back-asswards scenario, you have a bunch of nuts at a car magazine championing a by-product of the politicians attempts to make us all victims of their stupidity. Sorry Motor Trend, I won't be buying your idiotic magazine anymore but maybe you'll be able to pick up a couple envirno-Nazi subscribers.
Read more!
Friday, December 03, 2010
White House: Failure to Extended Unemployment Benefits will Cost Jobs
Six hundred thousand of them to be exact.
How is this for convoluted logic? Not paying people to stay out of the workforce longer will cause MORE people to be unemployed?
How many liberals does it take to come up with a coherent economic policy? None, because no matter how many leftists you have they can't come up with a coherent economic policy and nothing proves it better than this idiocy brought to you by Austan Goolsbee (How's that for a great name for a leftist economic adviser?) and the rest of Obama's council of economic advisers.
I have the utmost sympathy for folks who are unemployed in this economy. But the simple fact of the matter is that many just aren't doing everything they can to find a job -- any job. Case in point, one poor woman -- a guest on a Fox Business program last night -- who was one of the 99ers -- she ran through 99 weeks of benefits. She said she had been to several temp agencies looking for work and had sent out dozens of resumes. As one of the regulars pointed out, this isn't good enough and proves the point that the longer you extend unemployment benefits, the easier it is to prolong a job search. You have to be ready to do ANYTHING you have to do to get a job -- any job. Not sit around looking for the perfect job while whining that even the temp services don't have anything for you. There are very few places in this country where you are going to find your "perfect" job. The Obama economy has seen to that. You have to get out there and take anything available -- and there are SOME jobs out there in most markets -- while looking for the job you want.
This is easy to say for someone who has a job, right? Get out there and try to find one and you'll see how hard it is. I'm not saying looking for a job is easy. In fact it's downright impossible in some areas of the country (mostly ones like Michigan or New York where liberals are exclusively in charge). But if I found myself out of a job, I'd take anything available while conducting a search. Work at night and search during the day. Work during the day and search at night. Do everything in your power to get SOME money coming in. Sitting around and moping about your lack of work becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Make your own job. Do something! You have to search for a job from day one as if it's the last day of your last week of your unemployment benefit period. Extending unemployment benefits makes it less likely -- not more likely -- people are going to be hungry enough to REALLY search for a job. To say that not extending unemployment benefits will create more unemployment is utterly moronic. But in this day and age, we just have to get used to having the morons in charge be the norm. And to say that Austan Goolsbee and his boss are morons is a vast understatement.
Read more!
How is this for convoluted logic? Not paying people to stay out of the workforce longer will cause MORE people to be unemployed?
How many liberals does it take to come up with a coherent economic policy? None, because no matter how many leftists you have they can't come up with a coherent economic policy and nothing proves it better than this idiocy brought to you by Austan Goolsbee (How's that for a great name for a leftist economic adviser?) and the rest of Obama's council of economic advisers.
I have the utmost sympathy for folks who are unemployed in this economy. But the simple fact of the matter is that many just aren't doing everything they can to find a job -- any job. Case in point, one poor woman -- a guest on a Fox Business program last night -- who was one of the 99ers -- she ran through 99 weeks of benefits. She said she had been to several temp agencies looking for work and had sent out dozens of resumes. As one of the regulars pointed out, this isn't good enough and proves the point that the longer you extend unemployment benefits, the easier it is to prolong a job search. You have to be ready to do ANYTHING you have to do to get a job -- any job. Not sit around looking for the perfect job while whining that even the temp services don't have anything for you. There are very few places in this country where you are going to find your "perfect" job. The Obama economy has seen to that. You have to get out there and take anything available -- and there are SOME jobs out there in most markets -- while looking for the job you want.
This is easy to say for someone who has a job, right? Get out there and try to find one and you'll see how hard it is. I'm not saying looking for a job is easy. In fact it's downright impossible in some areas of the country (mostly ones like Michigan or New York where liberals are exclusively in charge). But if I found myself out of a job, I'd take anything available while conducting a search. Work at night and search during the day. Work during the day and search at night. Do everything in your power to get SOME money coming in. Sitting around and moping about your lack of work becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Make your own job. Do something! You have to search for a job from day one as if it's the last day of your last week of your unemployment benefit period. Extending unemployment benefits makes it less likely -- not more likely -- people are going to be hungry enough to REALLY search for a job. To say that not extending unemployment benefits will create more unemployment is utterly moronic. But in this day and age, we just have to get used to having the morons in charge be the norm. And to say that Austan Goolsbee and his boss are morons is a vast understatement.
Read more!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
