August 4, 2008

On The Gas Price Front…

…Pelosi and Company, the Democrats who are presently in control of Congress, have chosen to leave the American people in the lurch by heading off on vacation without first taking the time to try and solve the current fuel kerfuffle (despite the frustrated objections of a whole passle of their Republican colleagues). Oh, yeah, they have dropped a few half derriered ideas along the lines of depleting the strategic oil reserve for a few seconds’ dubious relief, exhorting the oil companies to drill empty or nearly empty oil leases, and extracting more money from the coffers of the oil companies, completely ignoring the concept of said concerns passing these additional costs on to the consumer, thereby nullifying the added expense to themselves, but hey – who ever said today’s Democrat politicians believe they’re paid to think things through?

I’m reminded of the budget debacle during Bubba’s first term in the White House, when that President repeatedly vetoed the then Republican controlled Congress’ efforts to put forward their budget, and the Democrats all going home on Christmas vacation while the Republicans remained in Washington attempting to hammer out a budget that would meet with Clinton’s approval – kinda’ showed us which party is more dedicated to We, the People, didn’t it? The only thing that saved the day back then was Alan Greenspan’s threat to raise interest rates during an election year if he didn’t have a budget on his desk post-haste – on that note, Clinton, both abruptly and conveniently, misplaced his veto pen and the next budget went through.

So now they’ve demonstrated in no uncertain terms that, whether they hold the minority or the majority in Congress, they will walk out on us without so much as a how-do-you-do because their vacations are more important to them than the work for which we pay them (you know, the “work” for which they periodically vote themselves pay increases whether their performance warrants such raises or not).

We can hardly expect the leftpard to change its spots at this stage of the game, so…

What I find most irksome about this entire thing is that, despite the majority of even their own constituency demanding that we consider drilling our own oil in order to relieve the shortage that is generating the higher gas prices, Pelosi and her House retinue have refused to even debate the subject with the more sensible representatives on the right side of the aisle, let alone among themselves. It seems that the enviro-extremists have infinitely more say among the Democrats than the constituency at whose pleasure these critters serve. For the Democrats in Congress, politics trumps both the will and the well-being of the American people.

Of course, while preventing the oil companies from drilling where there is plenty of black gold, Alaska tea, they blame these same companies for high prices, completely ignoring the facts:

We live in a market based, supply and demand economy. When a commodity is in short supply, in oil’s case this being when the countries we buy from limit recovery quantities and our own domestic drilling is not what it could be (by government mandate, not by private sector choice – Hmmm, where is the Constitution in all this?), prices go up. This has nothing to do with the President, whom the Democrats naturally blame, him being Bush and all, and little to do with our own oil companies, whose prices adjust to the cost of a barrel of oil. If you’re running a candy store and the wholesale cost of a Nestle’s Crunch goes up .25, you’re going to raise your own price a quarter a bar, right?

Speaking of Nancy Pelosi and drilling, I would be amiss without linking to a great post on the subject over at Mike’s America.

Having said my piece on this as relates to today’s irresponsible, purely politically motivated Democrat majority in Congress, let’s go back several days to a Walter E. Williams (yep, the guy who’s become one of my favorite all time columnists over the last few months) column about the environmentalist moonbats’ influence on government that is totally on point and highly relevant to the topic at hand.

Let’s face it. The average individual American has little or no clout with Congress and can be safely ignored. But it’s a different story with groups such as Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and The Nature Conservancy. When they speak, Congress listens. Unlike the average American, they are well organized, loaded with cash and well positioned to be a disobedient congressman’s worse nightmare. Their political and economic success has been a near disaster for our nation.

For several decades, environmentalists have managed to get Congress to keep most of our oil resources off-limits to exploration and drilling. They’ve managed to have the Congress enact onerous regulations that have made refinery construction impossible. Similarly, they’ve used the courts and Congress to completely stymie the construction of nuclear power plants. As a result, energy prices are at historical highs and threaten our economy and national security.

Read the entire column here.

The Cap & Trade bit’s a little scary, wouldn’t you say?

February 22, 2008

Screw The Country…

let’s just concentrate on getting the Hispanic vote!

In a CNN debate in Austin, Texas, Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton agreed Thursday night that the Secure Border Fence Act of 2006, which directs the secretary of Homeland Security to construct 700 miles of double border fencing along specific sections of the U.S.-Mexico border, should not be enforced as written.

Stressing her desire to be deferential to the views of people who live along the border in Texas — which on March 4 will hold a primary that is widely viewed as a must-win event for the New York senator — Clinton said of a border fence, “there may be limited places where it would work. But let’s deploy more technology and personnel, instead of the physical barrier.”

“This is an area where Senator Clinton and I almost entirely agree,” said Obama. “I think that the key is to consult with local communities, whether it’s on the commercial interests or the environmental stakes of creating any kind of barrier.”

Both Clinton and Obama argued that the Bush administration was being too aggressive in pushing to build the border fence mandated by the 2006 law.

By “too aggressive”, they surely mean “verbally” aggressive. How much fence have they built in the last year and a half?

The agreement among the senators came in response to a question asked by CNN’s John King, one of the moderators of the debate.

On September 29, 2006, the Senate voted 80-19 for passage of H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. (It passed the House on September 14, 2006, by a vote of 283-138). Clinton and Obama both voted for the act.

The law mandated that the secretary of Homeland Security build more than 700 miles of double fencing along specific segments of the U.S.-Mexico. Then House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King (R.-N.Y.), the principal sponsor of the law, explained its purpose in a floor speech on the day of the 2006 House vote. “It provides over 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing,” King said, according to the Congressional Record.

Above emphasis mine.

All 435 members of the House of Representatives and one third of U.S. senators faced reelection contests just one month after passage of the Secure Fence Act.

Yeah, sure… Voting for the bill was one thing, especially before an election, while actually allocating the funding to see it to fruition, after the election, is another thing entirely.

While Obama apparently has the black vote sewn up, he and Hillary are still vying for the Hispanic vote, yet neither wants to dumpsterize the vote of those favoring the enforcement of our immigration laws, so they offer straw-grasping alternatives neither would actually embrace, once elected, to the legislation they themselves voted for, in order to wear both hats.

That either specimen is actually a seriously considered candidate for leader of the free world is a telling example of how little today’s Democrats value even an iota of honesty in their political choices. But then, that became abundantly clear when they re-elected Bill Clinton.

December 1, 2007

Assimilation

Perhaps it’s just me, a product of Ukranian and Polish grandparents who, prior to producing my mother and her two sisters and later raising me, immigrated to the United States and immersed themselves in the business of becoming English speaking, patriotic Americans, but…

I have long been rather nonplussed at the drive by our portside political community to make light of the above concept.

Should the Salvation Army be able to require its employees to speak English? You wouldn’t think that’s controversial. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is holding up a $53 billion appropriations bill funding the FBI, NASA and Justice Department solely to block an attached amendment, passed by both the Senate and House, that protects the charity and other employers from federal lawsuits over their English-only policies.

The U.S. used to welcome immigrants while at the same time encouraging assimilation. Since 1906, for example, new citizens have had to show “the ability to read, write and speak ordinary English.” A century later, this preference for assimilation is still overwhelmingly popular. A new Rasmussen poll finds that 87% of voters think it “very important” that people speak English in the U.S., with four out of five Hispanics agreeing. And 77% support the right of employers to have English-only policies, while only 14% are opposed.

But hardball politics practiced by ethnic grievance lobbies is driving assimilation into the dustbin of history. The House Hispanic Caucus withheld its votes from a key bill granting relief on the Alternative Minimum Tax until Ms. Pelosi promised to kill the Salvation Army relief amendment.

What aggravates me here is that, we being a democracy and all, the Democrats, knowing that the vast majority of Americans believe that the English language should be coin of the realm here in the U.S., continue to press their multi-lingual agenda — of course, we know that they are motivated by targeted minority votes rather than the good of our country — and that they are willing to make light of the will of The People as such.

Maybe they should rename their party…

Yet the public is ready for leadership that will forthrightly defend reasonable assimilation. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger won plaudits when he said last June that one way to close the Latino learning divide was “to turn off the Spanish TV set. It’s that simple. You’ve got to learn English.” Ruben Navarette, a columnist with the San Diego Union-Tribune, agreed, warning that “industries such as native language education or Spanish-language television [create] linguistic cocoons that offer the comfort of a warm bath when what English-learners really need is a cold shower.”

“SNIP”, as they say,

But the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that last year filed over 200 lawsuits against employers over English-only rules, has a different vision. Its lawsuit against the Salvation Army accuses the organization of discriminating against two employees at its Framingham, Mass., thrift store “on the basis of their national origin.” Its crime was to give the employees a year’s notice that they should speak English on the job (outside of breaks) and then firing them after they did not. The EEOC sued only four years after a federal judge in Boston, in a separate suit, upheld the Salvation Army’s English-only policy as an effort to “promote workplace harmony.” Like a house burglar, the EEOC is trying every door in the legal neighborhood until it finds one that’s open.

The EEOC is no friend of the American People. They stink of the SPP/NAU agenda.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), who authored the now-stalled amendment to prohibit the funding of EEOC lawsuits against English-only rules, is astonished at the opposition he’s generated. Rep. Joe Baca (D., Calif.), chair of the Hispanic Caucus, boasted that “there ain’t going to be a bill” including the Alexander language because Speaker Pelosi had promised him the conference committee handling the Justice Department’s budget would never meet. So Sen. Alexander proposed a compromise, only requiring that Congress be given 30 days notice before the filing of any EEOC lawsuit. “I was turned down flat,” he told me. “We are now celebrating diversity at the expense of unity. One way to create that unity is to value, not devalue, our common language, English.”

That’s what pro-assimilation forces are moving to do. TV Azteca, Mexico’s second-largest network, is launching a 60-hour series of English classes on all its U.S. affiliates. It recognizes that teaching English empowers Latinos. “If you live in this country, you have to speak as everybody else,” Jose Martin Samano, Azteca’s U.S. anchor, told Fox News. “Immigrants here in the U.S. can make up to 50% or 60% more if they speak both English and Spanish. This is something we have to do for our own people.”

Azteca isn’t alone. Next month, a new group called Our Pledge will be launched. Counting Jeb Bush and former Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros among its board members, the organization believes absorbing immigrants is “the Sputnik challenge of our era.” It will put forward two mutual pledges. It will ask immigrants to learn English, become self-sufficient and pledge allegiance to the U.S. It will ask Americans to provide immigrants help navigating the American system, the chance to eventually become a citizen and an atmosphere of respect.

Go to any other country in the world and try to undermine its official language, and see how well recieved you are.

In 1999, President Bill Clinton said “new immigrants have a responsibility to enter the mainstream of American life.” Eight years later, Clinton strategists Stan Greenberg and James Carville are warning their fellow Democrats that the frustration with immigrants and their lack of assimilation is creating a climate akin to the anti-welfare attitudes of the 1990s. They point out that 40% of independent voters now cite border security issues as the primary reason for their discontent.

In 1996, Mr. Clinton and a GOP Congress joined together to defuse the welfare issue by ending the federal welfare entitlement. Bold bipartisan action is needed again. With frustration this deep, it’s in the interests of both parties not to let matters get out of hand.

The entire quoted Opinion Journal column, by John Fund, is here.

The only reason the Democrats are so dead set on creating a multi-lingual America is to get the votes of those immigrants/minorities who don’t consider learning English or otherwise assimilating into mainstream America a priority.

The modern Democratic Party is so, so different from the one to which I belonged and that which I supported during my younger, less informed years. Today, they are more than willing to sacrifice our country, the form of government that makes it great and any and every other ideal that distinguishes America from infinitely less desireable geographic entities for the sole purpose of having their politicians elected to office.

To my way of thinking, that is not only grossly disgraceful, but it is also pure, unmitigated treason.

November 9, 2007

The 58th Democrat Attempt, This Year,…

…to legislate surrender in Iraq?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Thursday that she will bring another troops-out-of-Iraq bill to the House floor on Friday.

It will be the 58th “politically motivated” bill on the Iraq war by the House and Senate this year, Republicans complained.

The Fifty Eighth!

Now, I may sound a bit partisan here, but repeated failure seems to be a recurring theme among the folks over there on the left side of the aisle. I mean, they embrace socialism… despite its extreme lack of success in every government that has adopted it over the years… and they want to force it on the rest of us, here in America, marketing it as “freebies” for all.

So this 58 business, while lending new meaning to the old adage “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again”, is also somewhat embarrassing to me, as an American, despite the fact that it comes from the left, which is as indictable as El Nino once was in its own milieu, for all sorts of problems.

Foreign media report on our Congressional activities, simply because the United States is what it is in the world, and a Congress that spends most of its time trying to disrupt the CIC during a time when American troops are in harm’s way demeans the image of America and our political system (think all us voters, who put these people in office).

Fifty Eight failed attempts by the majority on the Hill to surrender to terrorism must make us look pretty lame.

“We are restating the differentiation between us and the president of the United States,” Pelosi said at a press conference. “This gives voice to the desires of the American people,” she said of the bill, which ties war funding ($50 billion for four months) to an immediate troop withdrawal.

Right, they are “re-stating” the differentiation, etc, etc…

Liberals will be liberals.

These are people who will sink in quicksand to protest an anti-quicksand policy and wonder, as they begin to smother (ooops! too late!), if it was a worthwhile cause.

However, I digress…

The 58 surrender attempts have all had one thing in common: They all happened on the taxpayer’s dime. What Pelosi blatantly admitted in that single short paragraph was that the Democrats have no problem with flogging a dead horse on our time and money to press a political agenda.

Try being as unproductive in a salaried private sector job and see how soon you encounter the need to edit your resume.

House Republican Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) criticized Democrats for refusing to recognize the important of the U.S. military mission as well as the “tremendous progress we’ve made against all odds in capturing and killing agents of terror, and providing a level of security for political reconciliation to take place.

“This bill is deja-vu all over again,” Blunt said. “The last time Democrats tried to tie funding for our troops to a date for surrender, they failed - and that was before the marked turn-around we’ve witnessed on the ground over the past several months.”

Truncating…

On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Iraq from every neighborhood of Baghdad, according to a top American general - “allowing American troops involved in the ’surge’ to depart as planned.”

Which brings us to this:

The upbeat assessment from the New York Times and other major newspapers had some Republicans questioning the Democrats’ timing:

Blunt said the House on Friday would be taking up a bill “that has far less to do with building on our continued progress, and far more to do with pandering to their (Democrats’) base.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) issued a statement on Thursday questioning the continuing Democratic push for a troop withdrawal.

“What unfortunate timing for Democrats, announcing yet another attempt at a withdrawal date on a day when the papers are filled with encouraging news from Iraq,” McConnell said.

President Bush vetoed a bill tying war funding to a troop withdrawal in May, and he undoubtedly would do so again, given the chance. Some troops withdrawal bills, facing the prospect of a presidential veto, have not mustered enough support to pass the Senate.

So what it all boils down to is that the Democrats have so little regard for our tax dollars or for the Will Of The People that they’ve got absolutely no problem with wasting the time and the resources of the American People by squandering two years of a Congressional majority performing the Kiss of Shame on the far left.

Fifty Eight (count ‘em, 58!) attempts to surrender to the anti-thesis of our very civilization, “Paid for by the Democratic Party”.

October 22, 2007

Mark Steyn…

…defines, in this column, the true source of the “War On Children”.

Put as succinctly as this, any logic blessed American voter reading the column should stop and ponder:

1. Why aren’t the Democrats in Congress thinking about the future their social programs will leave to “the children”, who will grow up to be tax-paying adults? Why do they attempt to emulate failed European policies while ignoring the negative results of same?

Could it be that they’re only concerned with the politics of the now rather than the realities of the future?

2. Assuming they are concerned about the future of our country and about “the children”, is this simply a case of the Democrats being incapable of assessing the down-the-road ramifications of policies they set today?

Are political leaders who lack even an iota of perspicacity qualified to lead the country?

The United States of America is a perpetually ongoing concept, yet the Democrats treat it as though it is a political Busy Box whose attention span needs only to extend from one Election Day to the next.

If the Democrats feel the need to invoke “the children”, they need look no further for invokees than those occupying seats to the left of the aisle.

September 28, 2007

If There’s One Thing We Can Count On…

…it’s that no matter what happens, any and every solution the Democrats will devise to any and every problem will be based upon raising taxes.

Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, is proposing a new carbon tax to reduce U.S. energy consumption. Part of the proceeds, he said would help pay for “universal health care — “upon passage,” he noted.

Dingell, here, wants not only to raise taxes, but also to create a new tax to pile on to those we already pay. A “carbon tax”.

But he’s not finished!

In addition to the carbon tax, Dingell’s plan to reduce global warming also includes higher taxes on gasoline; and a phase-out of the mortgage interest deduction on what he called “McMansions.”

If that’s not enough, he’s holding free reign on the as yet unproven concept of man-made global warming.

Yeah, yeah, we know — Dingleberry and his ilk ignore the scientists who employ actual science to refute the man-made “climate change” theories that are based totally upon politics rather than science, so…

“The earth is getting warmer and human activities are a large part of the cause,” Dingell said. “We need to act in order to prevent a serious problem.”

Dingell admits that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be a “massive undertaking,” but he believes higher taxes and fees are “the most effective way” to solve the problem.

Dingell said he would levy an additional 50-cents-a-gallon tax on gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene, to be phased in over five years and then adjusted for inflation.

Boy, it must be nice to be able to simply pile on the taxes and restructure the Constitution at the same time. After all, the end result of this idiot’s agenda will be a socialist state to replace the present structure of the United States Government — Ding has already decided that socialized medicine is a done deal, so…

Where will the revenue go?

“First and foremost, the Earned Income Tax Credit will be expanded,” Dingell said on his website. He said the higher EIC (a tax refund for poor people who don’t pay taxes) will help lower income families compensate for the increased taxes on fuels.

Dingell said the money raised by the higher gasoline tax would go into a highway trust fund, with 40 percent going to mass transit and 60 percent going to roads. (The revenue from the tax on jet fuel would go into the airport and airway trust fund.)

Finally, Dingell said the revenue from his proposed fee on carbon emissions - the carbon tax - would go into the following accounts: Medicare and Social Security; Universal Healthcare (upon passage); State Children’s Health Insurance Program; Conservation
Renewable Energy Research and Development; Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

.

This is such a Democrat issue: Employ junk science as a basis for dumping large new tonnages of taxes on the American people while shoving our government in the direction of a political philosophy that is 180 degrees in opposition of the Law of the Land upon which our great and hitherto profoundly successful nation has been based from its founding.

To take things a step further, the politics advocated by the Democrats represent the cornerstones of those governments that have been our sworn enemies and collective anti-thesis over the last century.

Socialists. National Socialists. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

These folks simply don’t understand even the most fundamental reasons why we broke away from England in the latter part of the 1700s, why our great Constitution says what it says or why the United States of America is boss trump in the global arena.

We are.

Even when we read about the citizens of foreign countries opposing us via demonstrations and so forth, we can understand that the reason they’re bitching is that we’re the boss — we possess the factors that make any entity existing within the boundaries of humanity boss: We are both economically and militarily superior to the rest of the world. When America makes a move, it is felt across the globe. That’s the way it is.

We don’t simply sit on our riches and/or our military might, we share both. The Democrats find fault in the latter. They found fault in our protecting the South Vietnamese from communism and they find fault in our attempts to introduce democracy to the Arab world. They would prefer to surrender.

If the Democrats are so dedicated to the options of

a) living under Sha’aria law or

b) being beheaded

that’s their lookout.

If the Democrats are so dedicated to taxing us to death

that’s a good reason to vote otherwise

If the Democrats are so willing to transform us into a socialist country

that’s a spectacular reason to do away with their party.

‘Nuff said.

September 15, 2007

You Know…

…in large part, the success of the left in having infected such a large quantity of voters with disinformation sickness is, in many ways, the fault of the right-thinking side of the equation, yet this is, at the same time, somewhat excusable from an adult’s point of view.

After all, if anything at all has become cornucopially evident, it is that the Democrats have become, since Bush beat Gore, blatantly irresponsible in their anti-administration {and anti anything else that doesn’t glorify their own political agendas} rhetoric. Everything from comparing Camp Delta with the killing fields of the Pol Pot regime to attempting to smear the reputation of a great and patriotic general in order to achieve purely partisan political ends.

So here we have half a Hill full of Republican senators and representatives who are accustomed to addressing their professional affairs in a dignified and mature manner, as one would expect of folks we’ve elected to lead the country, beset by aggressively sub-adolescent attacks whose opposition would require playing in the same Romper Room environment that the Democrats play in. Being a conservative myself, I can understand where a fellow conservative might be at a loss to respond to such attacks, other than to offer up a mature reply, and at the same time feel reluctant, out of sheer self respect, to respond on the same level on which the attack-in-question was delivered.

Envision, for example, someone like John Bolton being forced to have a lengthy political debate with the likes of a Cindy Sheehan.

My point is that we conservatives tend to value our dignity, and the farther left you travel, the less value is placed on that very concept. As a result, those politicians who represent us are civilized men and women who would need to regress, drastically, in every way in order to remain on the same page as today’s Democrats.

Too many of them obviously don’t know what to do, I know that I’d be pretty nonplussed if a bunch of colleagues started questioning my integrity without any kind of evidence to support their innuendos, or blurted idiotic, platitude-related non-realities at me, expecting me to respond on an adult level.

The silver lining (for We, the People) I perceive here is that today’s Democrats are completely obtuse when it comes to reading the disposition of the American people. The problem, for them, is that they suck up the campaign financing offered up by ultra-leftists and other wingnuts on that end of the political divide, and then have to sing for their supper. This means that even against the sensibilities of We, the Voters, they are forced to pursue the agendas, no matter how unpopular among the majority of Americans, of those paying their freight — or lose a lot of campaign funding. We’ve seen how desperate Democrats are to garner, even at the sacrifice of their very morality, campaign contributions, even welcoming them from fleeing felons and others who run “bundling” schemes.

I don’t think the Republican Party will have as much difficulty as the media wants us to believe, in 2008, regaining a majority in Congress and another right-thinking President in the White House.

The Democrats have supped with the devil, and now he owns them. Hmmm, I seem to recall an old New York deli restaurant called Lox, Stock & Bagel. Now what made me think of that?

********

On another and totally unrelated thought, I wonder how Muslims felt about the first day of Ramadan being sandwiched in between Patriots’ Day (9/11) the day before and the first day of Rosh Hashana (Jewish New Year) the day after.

********

Speaking of which,

to my fellow Jews, Shana Tova!

by @ 10:47 am. Filed under Democrats, Just Talking

July 20, 2007

Should I Laugh Now…

or wait ’til later?

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Thursday blamed the Republican minority for sinking congressional approval ratings, calling recent poll results “a referendum on Republican obstructionism.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) blamed President Bush.

Schumer told reporters that Republicans - who earlier this week blocked a Democratic amendment that would have mandated a troop withdrawal from Iraq, and who in June blocked a comprehensive immigration reform bill - are frustrating Americans who are hungry for change.

That is hilarious!

From the time George W. Bush took his first oath of office as President of these here United States, the Democrats have aggressively obstructed his every agenda, with the notable exception of the amnesty bill a couple of weeks ago, a shared interest of the White House and the Democrats. Even now, they’re in hot pursuit of his nominee for Surgeon General, fighting any chance of confirmation tooth and nail — the Surgeon General for G-d’s sake, an almost entirely ceremonial position!

And all this purely in the name of partisan politics, screw the interests, will and even the safety of the American people.

Since winning the Congressional majority, they’ve thrown almost every iota of effort into continuing to attack Bush and the Republican Party, seeking subpoenas and indictments at every turn for invented transgressions, and continuously hammering away at their cut-n-run ambitions for Iraq. Otherwise, they have made little effort to do the job they are payed to do, that of governing the nation.

Now that their chickens have come home to roost in the form of performance poll results that border on a no-confidence vote, they have the chutzpah to whine that the Republicans (and of course Bush, for whom they always save some blame) are “obstructing” them. It’s all the GOP’s (and Bush’s) fault!

They cite two cases:

The Republicans’ steadfast refusal to support the Democrats’ Iraq surrender agenda and the Republicans’ steadfast refusal to grant amnesty to twenty million criminals who are trespassing in our country.

“The American people are demanding change,” Schumer said. “The one thing standing in the way is the Republicans in the Senate.”

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Idiot!

by @ 6:00 pm. Filed under Assholes, Democrats, Liberal Hypocrisy, Politics As Usual

June 22, 2007

The Bloomberg Uproar…

…is, as the Bard might have said, much ado about nothing.

The MSM and much alternative media as well promote the information czar turned New York mayor’s quitting the Republican Party as a significant event. Right, sure, um… it’s, er, truly an epic event.

Bah!

That’s right, Bah!

Bloomberg was a staunch Democrat prior to the N.Y. mayoral elections at the end of the Giuliani years. However, the Democrats already had a candidate. Really determined to be the mayor, Bloomberg went the turncoat rout and “became” a Republican for the sole purpose of running for mayor. He won.

His first move as the new Republican mayor was to revert to a Democrat, big time.

Now that he’s in the twilight stages of his second term, he no longer needs to be a “Republican”.

The headlines shouldn’t read, Bloomberg Leaves GOP, they should say, Hizzoner Casts Off Sheep’s Clothing.

Now the speculation begins: “Will Bloomberg make a run for President in 2008?”

The media and assorted pundits make reference to his $5.5 billion smackers, wondering if he will use a chunk of it to campaign for POTUS.

And then the wishful thinking makes its way to columns, blogs and broadcast — if he runs as an Independent, his candidacy will be good for, depending upon the commentator, the Democrats or the Republicans.

Now, all opinions are based upon the fact that he won’t win the general election, but that he’ll take votes away from one of the two major parties, like a major league Ralph Nader.

I am not a wishful thinker. Though I’m not always right, I tend to base my opinions and/or projections on what I view as reality based on evidence, human nature, track records, real circumstances, etc, etc. As often as not, I find myself at odds with fellow conservatives who continue to have faith in the integrity of today’s politicians while I reserve judgement under an umbrella of doubt based upon the “bitter pill” of experience.

Personally, as a conservative I would welcome a Bloomberg campaign.

He is for gun control, he is pro-”choice”, he is for stem cell research and other Democrat themes. He certainly wouldn’t get any votes from conservatives or true Republicans.

He would, however, get a lot of votes from moderate Democrats who mistakenly view Bloomberg as a conservative possessed of “progressive” ideals. With or without Nader running, the billionaire, with his monetary edge, would suck up Democrat votes like an aardvark with a Dyson tromping through ant country.

So sure, let the schmuck run for President. His loss would be America’s gain.

June 5, 2007

Birds Of A Feather

This one makes me chuckle, three of the most offensive liberal politicians in the history of the universe and the offspring of one, connected all but intimately to a majorly rich scammer of senior citizens — and not sweating any publicity because they are Democrats, and as such immune to any Congressional actions. That particular precedent was pointedly established in a recent affair involving Representative John Murtha.

Forget the Democrat Who’s Who, I want to see the What’s Next!

Anyway, back from the unavoidable (for me, at least) realm of digression, I suppose it would be best if I first hit you with the bona fides.

According to the The New York Times, InfoUSA compiled and sold lists that disclosed the names of elderly men and women who would be likely to respond to unscrupulous scams. The lists left no doubt about the vulnerability of the elderly targets. The Times reported, for example, that InfoUSA advertised lists of “Elderly Opportunity Seekers,” 3.3 million older people “looking for ways to make money,” and “Suffering Seniors,” 4.7 million people with cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. “Oldies but Goodies” contained 500,000 gamblers over 55 years old, for 8.5 cents apiece. One list said: “These people are gullible. They want to believe that their luck can change.”

InfoUSA sold lists to companies that were under investigation or closed down by courts because of their criminal activity. The company’s internal emails show that employees were aware that the investigation for elderly fraud involved their customers, but sold the lists anyway.
The Times profiled one unfortunate 92 year old man who entered a sweepstake sponsored by InfoUSA. The information that he innocently provided was then sold to the predator marketers.

After responding to their telemarketing calls seeking financial information, his entire life savings was stolen from his bank account at Wachovia Bank. These practices, using lists supplied by InfoUSA were repeated all over the country.

I can’t help but scratch up something from deep in my memory and a lot of really serious information imparted by Ann Coulter in her first book, High Crimes And Misdemeanors.

Okay, the former President and first-lady-cum-senator see no problem butt-bumpin’ with a criminal, so Speaker Of The House, third in line to be Boss of America Nancy Pelosi sees no reason not to get in on the fun.

One benefit is a lucrative boost to her son’s career.

Why not, right? Why shouldn’t Pelosi enjoy some attention from the same godfather the Clintons do?

These folks are so like monkeys that fit in a teacup, LOL. The fantasy land they live in is on a par with a kindergarten class. Fortunately for them, their constituent flocks are as naive as the likes of Pelosi and the Clintons want them to be.

But let’s try to get past all that, leave Nancy & Son to it, give ‘em some room, as it were…

Let’s move on, try to forget at least some of the Clinton-Gupta connection, or “allegations thereof”, and look at cold, practical facts.

From time to time, an innocent person is officially or consensus inspiredly (gotta be a Seth creation in the world of words) accused of wrongdoing. At the end of the day, they are either vindicated or condemned.

Bill & Hill, on the other hand, seem to lead a spectacular parade of suppressed criminal background.

My pernt bein’, if you’re accused of a crime and get off, okay. If you’re accused of a whole bunch of crimes and get off, you’re one lucky or well represented S.O.B., but guilty as hell.

Like Bill & Hill

by @ 9:48 pm. Filed under Criminals, Democrats, Is There Corruption Afoot?, Weasels