December 30, 2012

If it wasn’t “O”, it might be called unbelievable

However, it is, so it isn’t.

This one’s pretty self explanatory, as it were.

Now the kommie in U.S. president’s clothing is bribing Congress with our tax money in order to get them to vote his way.

Not only is that immoral, it’s also outrageous that he’s authorizing a pay increase to a government that’s doing nothing but failing the people who pay their salaries to begin with.

What’s next!?

by @ 11:41 am. Filed under The President

December 26, 2012

Not a surprise, just EgoBama in his usual form

Barack Hussein, speaking at the late Senator Daniel Inouye’s funeral, as usual seems to think that like everything else, it’s all about Obama.

Some things never change, not with the Egomaniac-In-Chief.

by @ 11:46 am. Filed under The President, Video

December 23, 2012

Following Up…

The left-hand feedback on Wayne LaPierre’s speech (see our last post)Armed Protection For Democrats, But Not For Schoolchildren
was predictable, but to see that the New York Post headlined on the speech with reference to NRA’s executive VP as an “NRA Loon” was beyond the pale — I’d always had the impression that they were a conservative paper with conservative views, Murdoch’s tabloid-style New York publication and basically a cheerleader (full of puns!) for the right thinking element here.

For them to call LaPierre a “loon” in response to his expressing an opinion that should have been not only expressed, but implemented as policy a long time ago…

…“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,”…

…guarantees that I’ll never buy that rag again. It sounds to me as if they are trying to expand their readership to include anti-gun liberals in the rotten Big Apple.

As Last Resistance so correctly says:

Armed Protection For Democrats, But Not For Schoolchildren

After Jared Loughner killed six people and injured fourteen others with a gun in Arizona at the beginning of 2011, liberals demanded to know why Sarah Palin, on whose shoulders they placed the blame for the massacre, would not weigh in on the issue. Her silence was outrageous.

Then something like a week later Palin did voice her opinion on the matter, and those very same outraged Democrats became outraged again. “Why is she sticking her nose in the matter,” they demanded.

Now, in the aftermath of this recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, liberals summoned their outrage that the National Rifle Association was cowering in silence rather than joining liberals in their fantasy world in which sentient guns have malice in their hearts and murder on their agenda.

Yesterday the Trinity Episcopal Church of Newtown tolled its bell 26 times, one for each victim of Adam Lanza’s dementia.

A little over an hour later, the NRA’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, gave a press conference in which he suggested having armed police officers at every school. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he said.

The NRA has even offered to train school security officers and develop and develop security plans–for free.

But liberals, never content to let their outrage be mollified, went from being outraged over the NRA’s silence to being outraged over the NRA’s “poorly timed” statement. The NRA has been Palin’d.

There is also criticism over the NRA’s proposal, of course, and substantial criticisms are fair. But they go something like this: “Put cops in every school? Are you insane?”

Well, what is more insane: to ask gun owners to turn in their guns to the government, as Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee did, and expect not only that good people will comply, but that people intent on killing will comply (“Aw, gee, I really wanted to shoot up that mall today, but the government’s asking me to turn in my gun, so nevermind”); to expect the government to outright confiscate guns, as MSNBC’s Ed Schultz suggested; or to have trained professionals at the entrances of schools?

Better question: Why do Democratic politicians, who receive the taxpayer-funded protection of armed security, want to keep women and children from being protected by armed security?

Perhaps it’s because liberals, who control the Democrats and are totalitarian thinkers, would rather have as many of these tragedies as possible occur so they have what they see as ammunition for more anti-Second Amendment rants…

by @ 10:00 am. Filed under Liberal Agendas

December 22, 2012

Wayne LaPierre/ NRA Response to the School Tragedy

This half hour video is worth watching, especially if you have children and/or value the well being of America’s children, who are our country’s future.

Showing consideration for the families of the young people who were killed by Adam Lanza, the NRA waited, allowing them time to mourn their losses, something Obama, Feinstein and the rest of the anti 2nd Amendment crowd did not do, instead jumping in immediately to make a political issue out of the tragic mass murder.

But then, those people are liberals, so what can we expect, right?

The video is here.

On another, related note, speaking of the usual anti-gun suspects:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg may have risen to become the country’s chief critic of lax firearm laws, but on his weekly radio show, he argued that has nothing to do with the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Indeed, Mr. Bloomberg claimed to be the strongest defender of the Second Amendment around.

“I don’t think there’s anybody that’s defended the Second Amendment as much as I have, Ray,” Mr. Bloomberg said to a caller who asked him why he was “so against” the constitutional passage . “I think you have a perfect right to buy weapons and keep them for protection or for sport. We have tried to make sure that you have it. The Supreme Court says that there are–consistent with the Second Amendment–you can have reasonable restrictions, so, for example, you can’t buy a nuclear-tipped weapon.”

The mayor also offered some possible interpretations of the Second Amendment that differ from those espoused by gun rights advocates.

Right, yeah, sure….

by @ 12:11 pm. Filed under Video

December 21, 2012

Solid Reasoning

There is no way that anyone without either a blind political objective or who is an Islamic terrorism supporting propagandist (such as those comprising CAIR, the “Council for American-Islamic Relations”, terrorism’s leading PR firm in the United States) could realistically refute what Ann Coulter said in this video.

It’s a testament to how far down the tubes our country’s gone that so many of our elected politicians, purely in the interests of their own careers, readily set policies that ignore the facts, thereby endangering countless American citizens whose lives depend upon our political leaders doing what is necessary to protect Americans.

by @ 2:03 pm. Filed under Ann Coulter, Homeland Security, Video

December 19, 2012

Baracks & Husseins are supposed to be anti-pork

Well, usually they are.

At least when it comes to the kind of pork that originates with animals that say “oink”.

However, when it comes to the kind of pork that constitutes the blatantly irresponsible allocation of the taxpayers’ money, the same Barack Hussein, like the rest of his commie “progressive” ilk, revels in throwing around copious quantities of the stuff.

And why not? When it runs out, they can either borrow more from overseas or simply raise taxes! Brilliant!

All this gross overspending needs to justify itself is a stated purpose that sounds compassionate, like disaster relief, for example. For that matter, it can fall under the heading of welfare, food stamps, anything at all that has to do with helping underpriviledged, downtrodden, unemployed, disabled or whatever, and it’s…justified.

Unfortunately, the politicians over there on the left use these fine, upstanding remittances as cover for opening the floodgates of taxpayer largesse to recipients, bureaucracies and other lucky entities that have little to do with the targets of the legislation enabling these payouts.

They’ll “spend” billions of dollars on a hundred million dollar need, squandering and more squandering, and then when the Republicans object to the unnecessary overspending, the Dems and their tame media will announce that the “uncompassionate” Repulicans want to deny those in need, let them starve, let them suffer, etc, when all the folkson the right are trying to do is have the money handled more responsibly for the sake of the above mentioned taxpayers.

And we’re not talking merely being gouged by overpriced goods and services, we’re talking using a lot of the money “stealthily” to bribe voting blocks and repay campaign favors.

Political Outcast provides a perfect example.

President Obama is requesting $60.4 billion in disaster relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy. If you’re opposed to disaster relief funding, then that means you want disaster victims to continue to suffer as much as possible. Conservative representatives in Congress would only vote against such legislation because they’re cold and heartless individuals. This is generally what liberals and big government Republicans think of those who are not in favor of the federal government giving handouts to storm victims.

But we’re not cold and heartless. It’s been shown time and time again that conservatives are actually more generous with their money than liberals are. Liberals prefer having their money taken through taxes to fund government programs that only make people poorer and more dependent on government. Conservatives give more of the their money away to charitable organizations that actually do help people in need.

It’s unconstitutional for the government to extract money through taxes and then give that money to other people or businesses no matter how good the government’s intentions are. But another reason these “relief” bills are bad is that politicians use them as excuses to stuff a bunch of money for pork projects that buy off their constituents. The NY Post reported:

“The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. It also includes a whopping $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC. An eye-popping $13 billion would go to “mitigation” projects to prepare for future storms. Other big-ticket items in the bill include $207 million for the VA Manhattan Medical Center; $41 million to fix up eight military bases along the storm’s path, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; $4 million for repairs at Kennedy Space Center in Florida; $3.3 million for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center and $1.1 million to repair national cemeteries.”

Some of these things don’t have anything to do with helping Sandy victims, yet they’re all part of Sandy relief package. How is giving $150 million to fisheries in Alaska supposed to help someone in New York who lost his home? How is spending money to fix up Gitmo going to help a business in New York whose building got destroyed by the hurricane? Or spending millions to help repair damages at the space center in Florida?

This is why conservatives are opposed to this kind of legislation. Would it end up helping some people and businesses in New York? Perhaps, but at the expense of the taxpayer. But now, it’s little more than a mini-bailout for politicians’ buddies. And if you’re opposed to it, that means you want children to suffer and be homeless.

Well put!

by @ 12:19 pm. Filed under Liberal Agendas, Liberal Economics, The President

December 17, 2012

Capitalism vs Socialism

by @ 12:50 pm. Filed under Video

Shoe is On Other Foot, or…Liberal Hypocrisy?

Remember when presidential candidate B. Hussein Obama and the rest of the leftists railed against then President George W. Bush for his homeland security policies regarding monitoring overseas telephone calls between suspected terrorism involvees and bank accounts/transactions of same, how heinous they made it all sound, as though the evil conservative POTUS was denying any semblance of privacy to we, the people, singling out little junior’s bank book and listening in on our most intimate telephone conversations?

Well, folks, all those exaggerated responses to logical security policies were mere bagatelles compared to what we now learn Obama’s tame attorney general, Eric Holder, has been up to.

From Wired dot Com:

Attorney General Secretly Granted Gov. Ability to Develop and Store Dossiers on Innocent Americans

In a secret government agreement granted without approval or debate from lawmakers, the U.S. attorney general recently gave the National Counterterrorism Center sweeping new powers to store dossiers on U.S. citizens, even if they are not suspected of a crime, according to a news report.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder granted the center the ability to copy entire government databases holding information on flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and other data, and to store it for up to five years, even without suspicion that someone in the database has committed a crime, according to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story.

Whereas previously the law prohibited the center from storing data compilations on U.S. citizens unless they were suspected of terrorist activity or were relevant to an ongoing terrorism investigation, the new powers give the center the ability to not only collect and store vast databases of information but also to trawl through and analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior in order to uncover activity that could launch an investigation.

The changes granted by Holder would also allow databases containing information about U.S. citizens to be shared with foreign governments for their own analysis.

A former senior White House official told the Journal that the new changes were “breathtaking in scope.”

But counterterrorism officials tried to downplay the move by telling the Journal that the changes come with strict guidelines about how the data can be used.

Yeah, yeah, sure they do…

Just like all the other so-called “invasive” Bush policies Obama vowed to do away with while he was running for president (to maintain the votes from his liberal base), but only intensified once he’s become president.

Anyway, read the rest of the article here.

December 15, 2012

Obama vs Charitable Deductions?

From One News Now:

Obama working to reduce deductions for charitable giving

According to a story in The Washington Post, the president sees the move as part of his plan to reduce the federal deficit..

If Obama has his way, the government would limit the charitable deduction for high-income earners, the people that groups such as the Red Cross and the United Way depend upon for donations.

According to the Post story, non-profit group leaders say lowering or eliminating the deduction would reduce giving by wealthy donors. Studies have shown that people would donate less if the deduction were reduced, but estimates of the effect vary widely.

The newspaper report also notes that in recent meetings and phone calls, White House aides have been pressing nonprofits to get behind the president on this issue as he tries to reduce the federal deficit and avert the “fiscal cliff” facing the nation.

American Family Radio’s financial expert Dan Celia, however, suspects there is more to the president’s plan than meets the eye.

“When we hear the president or any other administrative person talk about this — saying Well, for families making $250,000, if you’re in a 35-percent tax bracket, you’re going from a 35-percent credit to a 28-percent credit for your charitable deductions — that’s going to be the headline you’re hearing,” he said.

But Celia contends that the 28-percent number being reported is actually a cap — one that includes mortgage deductions.

“And frankly, it includes all itemized deductions, including the mortgage interest deductions, other interest deductions and such, along with the charitable deductions,” he said Friday morning on American Family Radio. “So it’s not reducing just the charitable deduction — but that’s the argument they’re going to make.”

Now, why does that NOT come as a surprise? Perhaps the next step will be to nationalize the charities that contribute the most to liberals’ campaigns and, through the over-bureaucratization that is a hallmark of left-hand government, manage to make these charities exponentially more expensive to the taxpayer than they are while supported by deductible contributions.

by @ 10:45 am. Filed under The President

Kinda’ Makes You Wonder…

In view of this tragic event, are there a Chinese version of liberals demanding more knife control?

by @ 10:33 am. Filed under Just Talking