I am sick today.

See ya tomorrow.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062106392/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=janbre0c-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0062106392

www.scorpionsforbreakfast.com.

Obama came here to tout his greatness. He got a Scorpion for Breakfast.

But the thing about scorpions, they don’t get riled unless you rile them.

I haven’t always been the biggest fan of our Governor (But compared to our last one- Big Sis herself Janet -yikes what a difference) but from everything I have seen Obama picked this fight.

Interview from just after it happened: http://www.kfyi.com/pages/broomhead.html?article=9666508

http://townhall.com/video/obama-vs.-brewer

Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ): Well, I was there to greet him. I was the first in line as he came off the plane. He came down, he said ‘Hello Jan.’ I told him, ‘Mr. President, welcome to Arizona and we kept the sun up for you.’ And it was a beautiful day in Arizona. And I said, ‘We appreciate you being here and the bottom line is I’d like the opportunity to sit down to talk to him about the great Arizona comeback and the things that we have done here and job growth, etc. etc.

I explained to him how we have turned Arizona around and that we both love our country. I know that he loves our country, I love our country. And he brought up my book. And he was a little tense.

He said that he had read the excerpt and he didn’t think that I was very cordial. And I said, ‘Well, we agreed on that day to disagree.’ And he was somewhat thin-skinned and a little tense, to say the least. And I don’t remember — I was trying to be calm. You know, that picture (Brewer pointing her finger at Obama) is very interesting but I don’t remember actually doing that. And he moved on down the line.

MESA, Ariz. (AP) - Gov. Jan Brewer says President Barack Obama discussed her book with her and that he didn’t give it a good review.

Brewer was at the Mesa airport Wednesday, among several state and local officials greeting Obama after he got off Air Force One.

Brewer was observed giving Obama an envelope and speaking with the president for a few minutes.

A news reporter said in a White House press pool report that Brewer later said Obama told her he didn’t feel her book treated him cordially.

She says she invited Obama to go to the U.S.-Mexico border with her and to also discuss Arizona’s economic comeback.

He went to the Intel planet in Chandler to tout his greatness. She went back to the Capital.

Typical.

Isn’t it interesting how the AP video switch to a view where the whole exchange is obscured just before it happens?

“He was a little disturbed about my book, Scorpions for Breakfast. I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president. The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt. So.”

Asked what aspect of the book disturbed him, Brewer said: “That he didn’t feel that I had treated him cordially. I said I was sorry he felt that way but I didn’t get my sentence finished. Anyway, we’re glad he’s here. I’ll regroup.”

On the letter, she said it was personal letter asking him to sit down with her to discuss the “Arizona comeback.”

She said she “reiterated an invitation that I’ve extended to him before with regards to coming to arizona and going to the border with me.” She said she would take him to lunch.

“We’ve had a remarkable comeback here and I want to share that with him.”

She said the president brought up the book.

“I thought we probably would’ve talked about the things that were important to him and important to me, helping one another. Our country is upside down. Arizona was upside down. But we have turned it around. I know again that he loves this country and I love this country.”

It was clear from the moment they greeted one another that this would not be a run-of-the-mill encounter between the president and a local official. At one point, she was pointing her finger at him and at another, they were talking at the same time, seemingly over each other.

He appeared to walk away from her while they were still talking, and she confirmed that by saying she didn’t finish her sentence.

Shortly after, Obama’s press aides released a statement claiming Obama said she “inaccurately described the meeting.” The three-sentence statement ended curtly, saying that “the President looks forward to continuing taking steps to help Arizona’s economy grow.”

“He wants to talk about comprehensive immigration reform,” she said, but “we need to talk about the problems that Arizona is facing, and in that context, the problems going on in Mexico… [but] he just doesn’t get it.”

Comprehensive immigration reform is a common Washington, D.C. euphemism for giving amnesty to illegal aliens.

In the book, she described Obama as patronizing during their 2010 meeting when she asked for his help in curbing illegal immigration. His reaction, she wrote, “was though President Obama thought he could lecture me, and I would learn at his knee.”

Obama’s curt treatment of Brewer came the day after he used his State of the Union speech to call for a reduction in partisan rancor.

Better government can’t “happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town.” he declared. “We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common-sense ideas.”

So another liberal call for “civility” last just hours.

Typical.

Obama 10/2011: “The one thing that we absolutely know for sure is that if we don’t work even harder than we did in 2008, then we’re going to have a government that tells the American people, ‘you are on your own,’” Obama told a crowd of 200 donors over lunch at the W Hotel.

“If you get sick, you’re on your own. If you can’t afford college, you’re on your own. If you don’t like that some corporation is polluting your air or the air that your child breathes, then you’re on your own,” he said. “That’s not the America I believe in. It’s not the America you believe in.”

But La Raza and the Liberal Left will love it anyhow. He stood up to the racist white bitch!

The winner, a guy who was previously homeless and has kicked and scratch and worked himself up to being a chef. He got beat one the first show. But now he was back to try again.

He fought hard and he won.

How the perfect anti-Obama. Redemption and Hard Work Rewarded.

The Republican National Committee has compiled this video comparing lines President Obama used tonight in his State of the Union Address with lines he used in previous addresses before Congress:

Obama 2010

: “It’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs.

Obama 2012

: “Colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.”

***

Obama 2010

: “And we should continue the work by fixing our broken immigration system.”

Obama 2011

: “I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration.”

Obama 2012

: “I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration.”

***

Obama 2010

: “We face a deficit of trust.”

Obama 2012

: “I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust . . .”

***

Obama 2010

: “We can’t wage a perpetual campaign.”

Obama 2012

: “We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign.”

The good news is that after a couple years these sorts of speeches begin to write themselves. (KFYI)

So I didn’t miss much apparently.

2009: “I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “I’ve got four years and … A year form now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

So it’s 3 years later. Leave already…

But as we all know Liberals can say things like that but when it come to fruition they have forgotten they even said it and when you remind them they blow it off because they didn’t mean it then and they don’t mean it now.

And the new sound bites, lofty rhetoric, they don’t mean that either. Never did.

They just want you to buy it on the moment, then forget it, just like they do.

It’s not like they have principles or anything.

Thomas Sowell: This may be the golden age of presumptuous ignorance. The most recent demonstrations of that are the Occupy Wall Street mobs. It is doubtful how many of these semi-literate sloganizers could tell the difference between a stock and a bond.

Yet there they are, mouthing off about Wall Street on television, cheered on by politicians and the media. If this is not a golden age of presumptuous ignorance, perhaps it should be called a brass age.

No one has more brass than the President of the United States, though his brass may be more polished than that of the Occupy Wall Street mobs. When Barack Obama speaks loftily about “investing in the industries of the future,” does anyone ask: What in the world would qualify him to know what are the industries of the future?

Why would people who have spent their careers in politics know more about investing than people who have spent their careers as investors?

Presumptuous ignorance is not confined to politicians or rowdy political activists, by any means. From time to time, I get a huffy letter or e-mail from a reader who begins, “You obviously don’t know what you are talking about…”

The particular subject may be one on which my research assistants and I have amassed piles of research material and official statistics. It may even be a subject on which I have written a few books, but somehow the presumptuously ignorant just know that I didn’t really study that issue, because my conclusions don’t agree with theirs or with what they have heard.

At one time I was foolish enough to try to reason with such people. But one of the best New Year’s resolutions I ever made, some years ago, was to stop trying to reason with unreasonable people. It has been good for my blood pressure and probably for my health in general.

A recent column that mentioned the “indirect subsidies” from the government to the Postal Service brought the presumptuously ignorant out in force, fighting mad.

Because the government does not directly subsidize the current operating expenses of the Postal Service, that is supposed to show that the Postal Service pays its own way and costs the taxpayers nothing.

Politicians may be crooks but they are not fools. Easily observed direct subsidies can create a political problem. Far better to set up an arrangement that will allow government-sponsored enterprises — whether the Postal Service, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Tennessee Valley Authority — to operate in such a way that they can claim to be self-supporting and not costing the taxpayers anything, no matter how much indirect subsidy they get.

As just one example, the Postal Service has a multi-billion dollar line of credit at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Hey, we could all use a few billions, every now and then, to get us over the rough spots. But we are not the Postal Service.

Theoretically, the Postal Service is going to pay it all back some day, and that theoretical possibility keeps it from being called a direct subsidy. The Postal Service is also exempt from paying taxes, among other exemptions it has from costs that other businesses have to pay.

Exemption from taxes, and from other requirements that apply to other businesses, are also not called subsidies. For people who mistake words for realities, that is enough for them to buy the political line — and to get huffy with those who don’t.

Loan guarantees are a favorite form of hidden subsidies for all sorts of special interests. At a given point in time, it can be said that these guarantees cost the taxpayers nothing. But when they suddenly do cost something — as with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — they can cost billions.

One of the reasons for so much presumptuous ignorance flourishing in our time may be the emphasis on “self-esteem” in our schools and colleges. Children not yet a decade old have been encouraged, or even required, to write letters to public figures, sounding off on issues ranging from taxes to nuclear missiles.

Our schools begin promoting presumptuous ignorance early on. It is apparently one of the few things they teach well. The end result is people without much knowledge, but with a lot of brass.

Bravo!

Now does that sound like Liberalism today and Obama in particular…

During the practically endless series of Republican debates, we have heard almost every question imaginable asked to Republican candidates – if by every question imaginable, you mean horribly slanted, often irrelevant questions designed to make them look bad and help Obama. We’ve heard questions about contraceptives, religion, Newt’s angry ex-wife, Gardasil, etc., etc., etc. So, what would happen if the mainstream media treated Barack Obama the exact same way that they treat Republicans? The questions might sound a little something like this.

1) Numerous Mexican citizens and an American citizen have been killed with weapons knowingly provided to criminals by our own government during Operation Fast and Furious. If Eric Holder was aware that was going on, do you think he should step down as Attorney General? Were you aware that was going on and if so, shouldn’t you resign?

2) In 2010 you said Solyndra, which gave your campaign a lot of money, was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” Today, Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost $500 million on loans that your administration was well aware might never be paid off when you made them. What do you say to people who say this is evidence of corruption in your administration?

3) Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In return, they gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost 14 billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special 45 billion dollar tax break. What do you say to people who view this as corruption on a scale never before seen in American history?

4) Through dubious means, you and your allies in Congress managed to push through an incredibly unpopular health care bill that helped lead to the worst election night for the Democratic Party in 50 years. Since the bill has passed, many of your claims about the bill have proven to be untrue. For example, we now know the bill won’t lower costs and despite your assurances to the contrary, big companies like McDonald’s say they may drop health care because of the health care reform. Since the American people have rejected your health care reform and it doesn’t do what you said it would, shouldn’t you work with the Republicans to repeal it?

5) When you took office, gas was $1.79 per gallon. Since then, you’ve demonized the oil industry, dramatically slowed offshore drilling, blocked ANWR, and killed the Keystone Pipeline. Now, gas is $3.34 per gallon. How much higher do you anticipate driving gas prices?

6) Occupy Wall Street has been protesting against Wall Street and the richest 1 percent in America. You are in the top 1 percent of income earners in America and you have collected more cash from Wall Street than any other President in history. So, aren’t you exactly the sort of politician that Occupy Wall Street wants to get rid of?

7) How do you decide which foreign leaders to submissively bow towards and why do you think that’s appropriate for an American President?

8) If they could, don’t you think the Nobel Committee would take back the Nobel Peace Prize that you were awarded?

9) You made bipartisanship one of the central themes of your campaign in 2008. Yet, you’ve worked to push bills through Congress with almost no Republican support, spent much less time negotiating with Congress than George Bush, and you’ve said things like, “But, I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.” Why did you decide to break your campaign promise to pursue bipartisanship?

10) America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time under your watch. What do you think you should have done differently to have prevented that historic failure?

11) You cut more than 500 billion dollars out of Medicare to fund your wildly unpopular health care reform bill. Given that Medicare is running in the red already, don’t you think it’s irresponsible to cut money out of one entitlement program, that millions of seniors depend on — to put it into a risky new entitlement program?

12) Back in July, you said, “Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years.” Since you plan to raise taxes if you’re elected and you’ve had kind words for a value added tax, shouldn’t every American expect a tax increase if you’re reelected?

13) Why should the American people reelect you when your 10 year budget saddles America with more debt than all previous Presidents combined?

14) Your stimulus bill cost more in real dollars than the moon landing and the interstate highway system combined. What do we have to show for all of that money spent?

15) Members of your administration promised that the trillion dollar stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, we’ve had 35+ months of 8% and above unemployment. Doesn’t that mean we wasted a trillion dollars on nothing? (John Hawkins)

It’s fun to think what could have been if we had Journalists instead of Left Wing Propagandists masquerading as “journalists”.

So have a supply of industrial barf bags if yo decide to watch Obama’s “soaring” Campaign Bull shit speech tonight then the fawning and slobbering by the Liberal Media before and after.

I will be watching “Chopped” on the Food network.

Mr. Obama has honed that message for months as he has attacked Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail, contrasting it with what he has described as Republicans’ “go it alone” free-market views.

Don’t you just love the polar extremes.

Either you are for government running everything or nothing at all.

All or Nothing.

With most Americans registering disapproval of the president’s economic record after three years, it is all the more imperative for Mr. Obama to define the election not as a referendum on him but as a choice between his vision and that of his eventual Republican rival.

Emotion over logic. Throw reason out the window and go for “Hope & Change” 2.0 because he’s such a brilliant P.T. Barnum Speaker that he will bamboozle you again.

Fool me once, same on you. Fool Me twice, Shame on me!

And he will kick it off with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords who says she is resigning. He will pimp that for all the juice he can. The sugar overload will make everyone a diabetic.

Mr. Obama said he would call for “a return to American values of fairness for all and responsibility from all.” (Read: Marxist style socialism)

Because responsibility for all is not personal responsibility. That’s “going it alone”.

“We can go in two directions,” he said. “One is towards less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go: building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few.”

Class warfare, envy, and “fairness”. The Zombie march continues.

“We must offer an alternative vision,” Mr. Romney said. “I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success.” (New York Times)

But resentment, envy, and fear are Zombie food.

Rolling up your sleeves, nose to grindstone, and being responsible for your choices and actions is like bullet to the brain of the Zombies.

The Government-must-do-it-for-me (and someone else must pay for it not realising it’s them anyhow) Zombie crowd is immune to reason and logic.

That’s why he will broadcast his Zombie-inspiring, Zombie-infecting State of the Union address.

The Zombie infection must spread and having an big TV audience will do nicely.

So, my recommendation: Watch “Chopped”. It will be more interesting…

P.s.

When burglar Kesler Dufrene became a twice-convicted felon in 2006, a  Bradenton judge shipped him to prison for five years. And because of  his convictions, an immigration judge ordered Dufrene deported to his  native Haiti.

That never happened.

Instead, when Dufrenes state prison term was up, Miami immigration  authorities in October 2010 released him from custody. Two months later,  North Miami police say, he slaughtered three people, including a  15-year-old girl in a murder case that remains as baffling today as it  did the afternoon the bodies were discovered.

DNA on a rifle found inside the house and cellphone tracking technology later linked Dufrene to the Jan. 2, 2011, slayings.

But North Miami detectives never got to interrogate him. Just 18 days  after the murders, Dufrene shot and killed himself when he was cornered  by Manatee County sheriffs deputies in Bradenton after an unrelated  break-in and shooting there.

 Now be “fair” and government will provide…

And the Republican’s want to help him with his image.

As he faces a reelection challenge with national job approval ratings still well below 50%, President Obama is seeking to portray himself as a man of the American people, stalled by those bipartisan know-nothings in Congress but determined to look out for the little guy in any way possible.

“We Can’t Wait” is his latest slogan, one which Republicans have mockingly picked up referring to the Nov. 6 election date.

After a brief bump from telling the Navy SEALs to kill Osama bin Laden, Obama’s approval is now no better than any other modern president and below all but one.

George W. Bush, who caused all the mess that Obama says he needs four more years to fix, was higher (49%) at this point in term one. And even doomed Democrat Jimmy Carter had majority approval (58%) at this late stage in his only term.

Obama will attempt to work on this public perception challenge Tuesday evening during his nationally-televised State of the Union Address to a joint session of Congress with a lengthy wish-list of populist programs. Soon after, comes his proposed federal budget.

Of course, very little of these ideas and items will ever come to pass, which the president knows.

As he seeks to become only the second Democrat president since World War II to win reelection, Obama is in reality building a premature platform to campaign on these next seven months leading to his party’s national convention in Charlotte.

A major challenge in Obama’s billion-dollar bid for a renewed lease on the White House and four more years to drive his progressive spending agenda is his image as an aloof Harvard elitist out of touch with ordinary citizens, much like 18th century French royalty.

One who golfs during wartime, stages frequent lavish celeb parties while citizens suffer high unemployment and foreclosure rates and vacations luxuriously on distant islands at the drop of a 747-boarding ramp. During last month’s holidays, Obama’s White House got by with only 37 Christmas trees.

With one highly-publicized exception last summer, Obama’s golfing partners and basketball buddies are almost always close friends or staff, an opportunity other chief executives have used for outreach bonding and socializing to ease everyday political cooperation and deals.

It took Obama 18 months, for instance, to invite the Senate opposition leader for an Oval Office coffee, a simple social gesture that most presidents accomplish their first week in office. Intentionally or not, even one of Obama’s favorite public postures (see White House photo above) gives off a sense of aloofness or arrogance. Watch for this gaze also as he reads the teleprompter Tuesday evening.

But now in one of a growing number of election year interviews, Obama reveals that he has figured out the real reason the American public sees him as cold, aloof and distant.

It’s the media’s fault.

Obama threw the entire Washington press corps under the bus. He was talking with a sympathetic Fareed Zakaria of Time in the Oval Office the other day.

In answer to a question, Obama said he’d forged close working relationships with world leaders such as Germany’s Angela Merkel, Britain’s David Cameron and India’s Singh. Speaking of himself in the third person, Obama predicted they would each say:

“We have a lot of trust and confidence in the President. We believe what he says. We believe that he’ll follow through on his commitments. We think he’s paying attention to our concerns and our interests. And that’s part of the reason we’ve been able to forge these close working relationships and gotten a whole bunch of stuff done.”

Zakaria then interjected: ”You just can’t do it with John Boehner.”

And Obama replied:

“You know, the truth is, actually, when it comes to Congress, the issue is not personal relationships. My suspicion is that this whole critique has to do with the fact that I don’t go to a lot of Washington parties.

“And as a consequence, the Washington press corps maybe just doesn’t feel like I’m in the mix enough with them, and they figure, well, if I’m not spending time with them, I must be cold and aloof.”

Obama claimed he and his wife “don’t do the social scene” because they are busy with their two daughters.

On Thursday, for example, Obama began the day with office work, then flew two hours south for a 13-minute speech at Disney World. Then he flew two hours back north to New York City for speeches at four Manhattan political fundraisers, including a show at the Apollo and a party at Spike Lee’s place.

After another hour flight on Air Force One and 10 minutes in a Marine helicopter, the president returned to the White House shortly before 1 a.m. Friday.

But he’s not an aloof, aristocratic dictator-wanna be.

And the liberal media that is slobbering all over…It’s their fault.

They need to do a better job of slobbering?

Not possible.

Nope. It just has to be every being in the universe’s fault except his. Period.

Except no substitutions.

And everyone will be thrown under the bus to save his Majesty’s Ego.

And the proper response is “Thank you, Master. You are too kind”.

And another interesting tidbit, when His Emperorship is giving his canned Ra-Ra Campaign Speech full of lofty rhetoric he absolutely does not mean and lowdown dirty politics that does mean it will be Tuesday January 24, 2012.

1000 Days since the US Senate (and thus the US Government) has passed a budget (which is the Republicans fault for passing a budget the Democrats didn’t like 3 years ago!).

He will likely propose another budget that will get voted down 96-0 like the last one because it’s all symbolism.

The Republicans are to blame for every thing. And they are too busy beating the crap out of each other to notice.

If your Frappucino machine spills your coffee all over the counter that’s the fault of the Manufacturer which is some faceless corporate intentity that supports the Republican Party so it’s their fault!

The Tea party are a bunch crazed whackos!

And then everyone else is to be blame because he’s black.

No wonder survivalists are on the rise with going on.

His people say the Democrat has some new ideas on how to increase tourism to Florida and probably the entire 57 states. Naturally, this requires another Obama speech.

And what better place for a campaigning president to go lecture needlessly on improving tourism than the iconic institution that figured it all out decades ago, Walt Disney Resorts? 

But here’s the problem with Obama going to Disney’s Main Street: They have to halt all tourism there for him to be seen encouraging more tourism, close the whole place down to tourists for much of the day while he’s there and before. Even Disney employees are being barred.

So, Main Street won’t look anything like the photo above. And the thousands of existing tourists who expected to spend a valuable vacation day strolling the old-fashioned shops for fudge and Mickey ears, riding the steam-powered cars and horse-drawn streetcars and getting a photo with the real Snow White today are just plum out of luck, like Grumpy.

This isn’t the first time Obama’s message has messed with the mechanics. A while back he flew about two hours to Columbus, Ohio for a 10-minute speech celebrating stimulus jobs at a construction site where workers had to take a day off without pay because the president decided to come mark their employment in front of cameras.

Does Obama, after all his lagging economic recovery, really want today’s political optics to be this oblivious president himself shutting down businesses all along any Main Street so that the Real Good Talker can read from a teleprompter at yet another hand-picked crowd for the cameras? Seriously?

Later, after the president’s entourage and motorcade depart the wonderful world of Disney following their private photo op visit, they’ll likely re-open the magical street to the tourists he was talking about getting more of. After how much lost business?

But Obama leaving Main Street is bad news for Broadway.

After shutting down Disney’s Main Street, President Obama is heading to New York City this afternoon to paralyze Manhattan traffic again. That’s because the Obama 2012 campaign has him scheduled for not one, not two, not three, but four campaign fundraisers in one evening.

Hopefully, the well-heeled 1% can listen as fast as he talks.

A common question I ask the “soak the rich” crowd (which usually gets an angry response): “Have you gotten your $38,500 “middle class warrior” autograph yet?”

He is a man of the people. He hates rich people. He hates Corporate America.

But they love him anyways and give him millions of dollars to continue bashing their heads in.

Why?

As I said yesterday, Zombies don’t understand logic or reason. They sure as hell don’t care.

Create an entirely new narrative. Push an entirely new issue. Change the subject from your record and your ideology, from massive debt and overreaching government, to fairness and inequality. Make the election a referendum on which party really cares about you, which party will stand up to the greedy rich who have pillaged the 99 percent and robbed the middle class of hope.

This charge, too, is straightforward: The Republicans serve as the protectors and enablers of the plutocrats, the exploiters who have profited while America suffers. They put party over nation, fat-cat donors over people, political power over everything.

It’s all rather uncomplicated, capturing nicely the Manichaean core of the Occupy movement — blame the rich, then soak them. But the real beauty of this strategy is its adaptability. While its first target was the do-nothing protect-the-rich Congress, it is perfectly tailored to fit the liabilities of Republican front-runner Mitt Romney — plutocrat, capitalist, 1 percenter.

Obama rolled out this class-war counter-narrative in his December 6 “Teddy Roosevelt” speech and hasn’t governed a day since. Every action, every proposal, every “we can’t wait” circumvention of the Constitution — such as recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess — is designed to fit this re-election narrative.

Hence: Where does Obama ostentatiously introduce the recess-appointed head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? At a rally in swing-state Ohio, a stage prop for Obama to declare himself tribune of the little guy, scourge of the big banks and their soulless Republican guardians.

Now, economic inequality is an important issue, but the idea that it is the cause of America’s current economic troubles is absurd. Yet, in a stroke, the Republicans have succeeded in turning a Democratic talking point — a last-ditch attempt to salvage re-election by distracting from their record — into a central focus of the nation’s political discourse.

How quickly has the zeitgeist changed? Wednesday, the Republican House reconvened to reject Obama’s planned $1.2 trillion debt-ceiling increase. (Lacking Senate concurrence, the debt ceiling will be raised nonetheless.) No one noticed. It made page A16 of the New York Times. All eyes are on South Carolina and Romney’s taxes.

This is no mainstream-media conspiracy. This is the GOP maneuvering itself right onto Obama terrain.

The president is a very smart man. But if he wins in November, that won’t be the reason. It will be luck. He could not have chosen more self-destructive adversaries. (Charles Krauthammer)

As always, Charles, I agree.

What’s Worse than a Zombie Hoard coming to get you?

Your “protectors” giving you to them willingly because they are too busy beating the crap out of each other to “protect” you or even care if you live or die.

Thy Ego Runneth Over.

For 2012 I have revised this analysis.

They are just a zombie hoard.

Remorseless. Merciless. Incapable of shame, morals or ethics.

They want want what they want when they want it and because they want it and will do anything to get it. Relentlessly.

And what they want is YOU. You to be either converted or cowtowed to their every whim. To do whatever they want when they want it.

Evidence John King, the CNN Liberal Moderator of the South Carolina Debate. He opens the debate with a salicious question to Gingrinch about his “open marriage” and Gingrinch blows him to bits for it and the crowd goes wild.

He did this to prove his “courage” to stand up to the evil “right wingers” and puff out his chest that he was “journalist” and was going to bravely confront the issue. Meanwhile, anything remotely damaging to President Obama is ignored with great speed and spin.

Rush Limbaugh (who I rarely get a chance to listen to because of my work schedule): Now, let me tell you one thing here, folks: You cannot shame the mainstream media. If any of you are thinking that the media learned a lesson — if any of you believe that the media finally had it handed to ‘em, if you believe that the media had their eyes opened and they are fully awake now and they understand what they’re dealing with — forget it. John King is proud of what happened last night. John King is a hero in the Main Street media because he didn’t back down, because he continued to illustrate how it is that the media does really control the agenda. That was a demonstration of the power they hold over every public figure’s head, that they choose to hold like a guillotine. John King… There may even be some jealousy and envy within the journalist ranks (well, not journalists; within the Democrat Party ranks) because John King is a guy that got in Newt’s face, stared him down — and the fact that Newt told him off? It’s a badge of honor. If you are thinking that John King was embarrassed and ran away with his tail tucked between his legs and learned his lesson and it’ll never happen again? Ah, ah, ah, ah. You cannot shame the mainstream media. They are proud of this. They delight in their power to destroy candidates that they don’t like.

And they don’t like anyone who doesn’t cowtow to them.

“At the end of the day the message to every conservative who hasn’t run for office is: “You want a piece of this? You want some of this? You want Brian Ross hounding you and your ex-wife and then you want me asking you about it on national TV the next night? Come on in. We’re ready.” That’s the message from John King and CNN last night, and do not doubt me on this.”

So the alternative is to cowtow. To live in fear of the Liberal wrath.

The Food Police. The TSA. The EPA. The Justice Department. Homeland Security. The FCC.

Because if they can’t make you a zombie, they can at least make you a peasant in fear of your Masters who will not challenge them or not have the power to challenge them.

“[...]you don’t have to be Sun freakin Tzu to know that real fighting isn’t about killing or even hurting the other guy, it’s about scaring him enough to call it a day.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

They’ll just turn your children into zombies instead. 12 years of Grade School and 4 years of College is a lot of Zombie Voodoo time after all. And “getting them while they are young” is entirely within the Zombie Liberal playbook. Make them a zombie before they even know what one is and then make them as immune as possible to any anti-virus and get them addicted to their own Kool-Aid. Feed it to them constantly through the Media and the Internet.

What it does is illustrate that they can be dealt with. But you can’t beat ‘em. They’re not gonna be shamed. They’re not going to be shamed into stopping the coverage of conservatives as they do it. It’s going to continue. No matter what kind of shame you think they suffer in a contest like that — no matter how much money they lose, no matter how many of them get fired, no matter how many magazines or TV stations or newspapers get shut down — they are not gonna change. They are hard-core, leftists”

And as I have said over and over again, they are have no morals or ethics because they are governed not by logic and reason but by emotions, mostly the most basic of primitive emotions, Fear, Lust (for power), anger, jealousy, ENVY, etc. –Raw emotions.

Which is why when you engage them they sound and act like an immature 5 year old. And as we all know from childhood development the child has to develop a sense of shame by have having boundaries and limitations and consequences. And if they don’t, they will grow up to with little to no sense of shame.

They are usually called sociopaths. I can call them Liberal Zombies.

Liberals have no shame. They want what they want when they want it because they want it.

“…one of the upsides that isn’t gonna happen is the media saying, “Gosh, we’ve been so mean to these people and so unfair. You know, maybe we ought to start being fair.” That’s not going to happen.

Liberals talk about being “fair” which means you’re being unfair to them and should do what they want.

Liberals talk about “compassion” but it’s to make you feel guilty, not them, and to do what they want.

Liberals will talk about “bi-partisanship” but that just means you have to compromise your principles so they can do what they want.

“Diversity” means you’re evil and need to do what they say to repent for your sins.

They are a remorseless hoard. They want what they want when they want it and on their terms only.

Give them everything they want or they’ll cry, scream, bitch, moan, pout and lash out at you.

That is their primitive zombie hoard mentality. And they want YOU.

“Lies are neither bad nor good. Like a fire they can either keep you warm or burn you to death, depending on how they’re used.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“Most people don’t believe something can happen until it already has. That’s not stupidity or weakness, that’s just human nature.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“Often, a school is your best bet-perhaps not for education but certainly for protection from an undead attack.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“Remember; no matter how desperate the situation seems, time spent
thinking clearly is never time wasted.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“I think that most people would rather face the light of a real enemy than the darkness of their imagined fears.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“They feel no fear, why should you?”– Max Brooks

“The zombie may be gone, but the threat lives on.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

Get rid of one zombie, and 10 more will take it’s place. So you have to be ready to do battle constantly.

Look at 2010. The Democrats suffered the worst defeat in 80 years. Does it look like they learned ANYTHING?

No.

As a matter of fact the zombie hoard is even tighter, even more determined than ever. They want it EVEN MORE.

So if we defeat then in 2012 will they go away?

HELL NO!

They will just keep coming back like a remorseless zombie hoard until you are overwhelmed.

Which is why you will have to fight them all of your days, your kids days and their kids days until the infection is wiped out.

But like any good zombie plaque it only takes 1 to re-ignite it and spread it all over again.

And these zombies has Media and Internet outlets! (and Europe!)

“Looking back, I still can’t believe how unprofessional the news media was. So much spin, so few hard facts. All those digestible sound bites from an army of ‘experts’ all contradicting one another, all trying to seem more ‘shocking’ and ‘in-depth’ than the last one. It was all so confusing, nobody seemed to know what to do.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“The only rule that ever made sense to me I learned from a history, not an economics, professor at Wharton. “Fear,” he used to say, “fear is the most valuable commodity in the universe.” That blew me away. “Turn on the TV,” he’d say. “What are you seeing? People selling their products? No. People selling the fear of you having to live without their products.” Fuckin’ A, was he right. Fear of aging, fear of loneliness, fear of poverty, fear of failure. Fear is the most basic emotion we have. Fear is primal. Fear sells.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

The Democrat Party in a nutshell.

FEAR IS HOPE!

My own personal Fourth Orwellian Precept (which includes WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH).

“If you believe you can accomplish everything by “cramming” at the eleventh hour, by all means, don’t lift a finger now. But you may think twice about beginning to build your ark once it has already started raining”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“When I believe in my ability to do something, there is no such word as no.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“. . . show the other side, the one that gets people out of bed the next morning, makes them scratch and scrape and fight for their lives because someone is telling them that they’re going to be okay.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“This is the only time for high ideals because those ideals are all that we have. We aren’t just fighting for our physical survival, but for the survival of our civilization. We don’t have the luxury of old-world pillars. We don’t have a common heritage, we don’t have a millennia of history. All we have are the dreams and promises that bind us together. All we have…is what we want to be.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“…We were a shaken, broken species, driven to the edge of extinction and grateful only for tomorrow with perhaps a little less suffering than today. Was this the legacy we would leave our children, a level of anxiety and self-doubt not seen since our simian ancestors cowered in the tallest trees? What kind of world would they rebuild? Would they rebuild at all? Could they continue to progress, knowing that they would be powerless to reclaim their future? And what if that future saw another rise of the living dead? Would our descendants rise to meet them in battle, or simply crumple in meek surrender and accept what they believe to be their inevitable extinction? For this alone, we had to reclaim our planet. We had to prove to ourselves that we could do it, and leave that proof as this war’s greatest monument. The long, hard road back to humanity, or the regressive ennui of Earth’s once-proud primates. That was the choice, and it had to be made now.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

Where did President Obama go after killing off thousands of Keystone XL pipeline construction and manufacturing jobs? Why, Disney World, of course. Sabotaging work is hard work for Goofy and his pals.

And where’d he head after that? Why, up to Manhattan for more high-priced campaign fundraisers charging up to $38,500 per partier. The business of wining and dining politically connected donors ain’t child’s play, you know. (Michelle Malkin)

On Tuesday, President Obama met with his so-called Council on Jobs and Competitiveness to discuss its recommendations for the U.S. economy. Despite the panel being stacked with cronies and rent-seekers, its recommendations were mostly sensible. The council recommended aggressively pushing to develop U.S. energy resources, streamlining federal regulations and reforming the corporate tax code to reduce the rate and spur international competitiveness.

In his opening comments Obama said, “I’ve personally emphasized to the White House team and to the cabinet the importance of aggressively implementing the recommendations of this job council.” The facts suggest otherwise.

On Wednesday, the president spiked the Keystone XL pipeline, preventing tens of thousands of jobs from being created and weakening precisely the type of energy infrastructure that the jobs council recommended. To quote the council’s report, “Policies that facilitate the safe, thoughtful and timely development of pipeline, transmission and distribution projects are necessary.” But what if such a development comes into conflict with ideologically motivated, powerful environmental special interests? We now know where Obama comes down.

What about streamlining federal regulations? On Tuesday Obama said, “I tasked federal agencies to cut inefficient or excessively burdensome regulations, and … the preliminary results are exciting.” But nobody other than Obama’s left-wing base has found the progress particularly exciting.

Obama touted estimated 10-year savings in compliance costs of $10 billion, or $1 billion per year; even if the annual federal regulatory burden stayed at the 2008 level of $1.75 trillion per year, that would mean virtually indiscernible savings of 0.057%. But the federal regulatory burden is hardly standing still; it’s actually skyrocketing at an unprecedented pace, led by an EPA regulatory onslaught that includes dozens of rules that impose billions of dollars in new costs.

The Heritage Foundation estimated that just through the first half of last year new Obama regulations added $38 billion in compliance costs. The EPA’s newly finalized Utility MACT rule, its most expensive rule in history, will cost as much as $11 billion according to the EPA’s own estimates. That’s more than all of the savings Obama is touting from regulatory reform. More realistic estimates suggest the cost of Utility MACT and other new EPA rules could be more than $300 billion, putting millions of jobs at risk.

An analysis of just this year’s new regulations — and we’re only 18 days into the year — by Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute confirms that Obama’s regulatory rampage continues unabated, notwithstanding the recommendations of the jobs council. Crews reports that in the first 18 days of the year, there are already 115 new final regulations that occupy 2,609 pages in the Federal Register. Eighteen of those rules have been designated economically significant, generally indicating an economic cost of $100 million or more.

The biggest regulatory laugher was Obama’s comments on the Federal Communications Commission: “The FCC, prompted by our request but also due to some excellent work by Julius Genachowski, they’ve already eliminated 190 rules.”

Because Genachowski has visited the White House about a hundred times and is clearly taking his marching orders from Obama, we can stop pretending like the FCC is an independent agency.

The key point is that this is the same FCC that manufactured for itself from whole cloth the authority to regulate broadband Internet providers, despite the fact Congress and the American people resoundingly rejected the idea. Over time, that regulation could crush the most vibrant sector of the American economy. The FCC broke with all precedent to release a staff report to kill the AT&T/T-Mobile merger, sacrificing tens of thousands of jobs and billions in investment to reward left-wing ideological interests. The FCC has also implemented mandatory data roaming requirements. And the FCC has relentlessly attempted to transfer ill-fitting regulatory frameworks from the old monopoly telephone system into the competitive broadband world.

In short, it simply doesn’t matter how many old regulations are cleared off the books when an agency is implementing an aggressive slate of new rules that dwarf them in cost and complexity.

Obama isn’t doing any better on tax reform. While bipartisan efforts to make the U.S. more competitive by broadening the base and lowering the rate on the corporate income tax have gained momentum on the Hill, the president has been missing in action. And the president’s budget is widely expected to again propose ending the deferral of taxes on foreign-sourced income, making matters worse by driving corporate headquarters abroad instead of taking the more sensible approach of allowing tax-free repatriation of foreign-sourced income the way the rest of the world does.

The bottom line is that Obama continues to pay lip-service to job creation, but his actions betray his contempt even for the job creation policies recommended by his own jobs council.

Vote for me, the other Guy’s an Asshole!

Different histories, geography, demography and cultures have left  various groups, races, nations and civilizations with radically  different abilities to create wealth.

In centuries past, the  majority population of various cities in Eastern Europe consisted of  people from Western Europe — Germans, Jews and others — while the vast  majority of the population in the surrounding countrysides were Slavs  or other indigenous peoples of the region.

Just as Western Europe  was — and is — more prosperous than Eastern Europe, so Western  Europeans living in Eastern European cities in centuries past were more  prosperous than the Slavs and others living in the countrysides, or even  in the same cities.

One of the historic advantages of Western  Europe was that it was conquered by the Romans in ancient times — a  traumatic experience in itself, but one which left Western European  languages with written versions, using letters created by the Romans.  Eastern European languages developed written versions centuries later.

Literate  people obviously have many advantages over people who are illiterate.  Even after Eastern European languages became literate, it was a long  time before they had such accumulations of valuable written knowledge as  Western European languages had, due to Western European languages’  centuries earlier head start.

Even the educated elites of Eastern  Europe were often educated in Western European languages. None of this  was due to the faults of one or the merits of the other. It is just the  way that history went down.

But such mundane explanations of gross  disparities are seldom emotionally satisfying — least of all to those  on the short end of these disparities. With the rise over time of an  indigenous intelligentsia in Eastern Europe and the growing influence of  mass politics, more emotionally satisfying explanations emerged, such  as oppression, exploitation and the like.

Since human beings have  seldom been saints, whether in Eastern Europe or elsewhere, there were  no doubt many individual flaws and shortcomings among the non-indigenous  elites to complain of. But those shortcomings were not the fundamental  reason for the economic disparities between Eastern Europeans and  Western Europeans. More important, seeing those Western European elites  in Eastern Europe as the cause of the economic disparities led many  Eastern Europeans into the blind alley of ethnic identity politics,  including hostility to Germans, Jews and others — and a romanticizing  of their own cultural patterns that were holding them back.

What happened in Eastern Europe, including many tragedies that grew  out of the polarization of groups in the region, has implications that  reach far beyond Europe, and in fact reach all around the world, where  similar events have produced similar polarizations and similar historic  tragedies.

Today, in America, many denounce the black-white gap in  economic and other achievements, which they attribute to the same kinds  of causes as those to which the lags of Eastern Europeans have been  attributed. Moreover, the persistence of these gaps, years after the  civil rights laws were expected to close them, is regarded as something  strange and even sinister.

Yet the economic disparities between  Eastern Europeans and Western Europeans remains to this day greater than  the economic disparities between blacks and whites in America — and  the gap in Europe has lasted for centuries.

Focusing attention and  attacks on people who have greater wealth-generating capacity –  whether races, classes or whatever — has had counterproductive  consequences, including tragedies written in the blood of millions.  Whole totalitarian governments have risen to dictatorial power on the  wings of envy and resentment ideologies.

Intellectuals have all  too often promoted these envy and resentment ideologies. There are both  psychic and material rewards for the intelligentsia in doing so, even  when the supposed beneficiaries of these ideologies end up worse off.  When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to  help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.

Both politicians and intellectuals have made their choice. (Thomas Sowell)

And we Lose.

 

 

Unemployment more important jobs. Unemployment and dependence creates jobs.

The great un-decider who wants someone to blame for his non-decision decisions is at it again.

In a decision that quickly re-ignited a fierce energy debate, the Obama administration on Wednesday rejected the controversial Keystone XL pipeline because the 60-day deadline imposed by Republicans did not allow adequate time to review an alternate route through an ecologically sensitive area in Nebraska.

It’s BS. They’ve been studying it for  3 years already!

He’s just playing his normal game with jobs. Where the jobs “saved or created” are credited to him, in service to him, or dependent on him.

But these were largely Union jobs, which is what so funny about this whole debacle.

But that’s the Republicans fault!!

Isn’t everything on the Left.

The boring meme of “they made me do it” is so tedious.

President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL oil pipeline sums up his presidency. When it comes down to well-paying new jobs and cheaper energy vs. his political base, guess which wins.

Because he is, after all, the most important man in the world and his re-election the only issue.

The 1,700-mile TransCanada Keystone crude oil pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast is a no-brainer. Canada’s oil sands are the largest source of crude oil outside the Middle East and the 700,000 barrels of black gold per day the pipeline would bring would mean hundreds of thousands of new jobs, lower gasoline prices, less U.S. dependence on Mideast oil and hundreds of millions of dollars in increased revenues for the states.

All those high-salaried jobs are why both Democratic-supporting labor unions and Republican-supporting business interests are pro-Keystone.

Yet, instead of supporting it in a spirit of bipartisanship, the “Great Uniter” had a State Department flunky announce his opposition on Wednesday.

Put more simply, the Obama administration hit back at Republicans by saying no because of their forcing him to decide on the project in just 60 days. Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail promptly painted the decision as a rejection of thousands of American jobs purely for political reasons.

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, decried the news. “President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs and sell American energy security to the Chinese,” said Brendan Buck. “The president won’t stand up to his political base even to create American jobs. This is not the end of this fight.”

The Canadians have said that if we won’t approve the pipeline they’ll run it to Vancouver and sell it to the Chinese.

The White House has been trying to thread a needle between two segments of the Democratic base split over the pipeline: labor unions that support the project for the jobs it would bring, and environmentalists who oppose it for the adverse impacts that development of tar-sands oil could have on the environment.

So what you have is a PURELY POLITICAL Position.

The timing of the announcement was more surprising, since the administration had until Feb. 21 to decide. But a Wednesday announcement does make some political and economic sense. It allows Obama to go on offense before Thursday’s debate between Republican presidential candidates in South Carolina and before his own State of the Union address next Tuesday. It also comes before public anger could grow if gasoline prices continue their upward climb in the weeks ahead.

So when you here the meme that it was Republicans fault for the $4 a gallon gas this summer and that Armageddon is coming just remember who really started this mess because neither The Democrats nor The Media will remember it.

“This is the last day to own this issue on their terms,” said Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners, a Washington-based energy consulting firm. “The administration gets to explain their choice before it gets explained for them.”

Obama fundraiser Wendy Abrams, for example, a well-heeled Chicago enviro-activist and Rahm Emanuel buddy whose family owns the country’s largest privately held medical equipment maker (ObamaCare anyone?), recently warned that the Keystone decision would show whether Obama “really wants to begin the transformation to building a renewable energy future.”

And after all, Obama’s Re-election is more important anything in the Liberal universe. Who gives a crap about jobs when only 1 job matters now.

And blaming the Republicans for YOUR OWN decisions is more important in the long run.

“Vote For Me– it’s The Republicans Fault!!”

“Vote for Me! the Other Guy is an Asshole!!”

“President Obama has taken steps to make us energy independent and create an economy that’s built to last,” the Obama campaign said on the Web page where the ad is hosted. It is already running in several swing-states, including Ohio and Pennsylvania.

<<Barf bag overload>>

The new ad is partly intended to shield Obama from criticism about his energy policies, which have curbed opportunities for oil companies, nudged up gas prices and heavily subsidized risky green-tech companies, including the failed Solyndra solar-tech company.

That purpose is highlighted in the ad’s first few words, which claims “secretive oil billionaires are attacking President Obama with ads fact-checkers say are not tethered to the facts.”

Those “secretive oil billionaires,” according to the campaign’s website, are David and Charles Koch — a pair of libertarian brothers who run an huge oil-services company and openly declare their opposition to Obama’s energy policies.

The Koch Brothers are the latest childish Satan-on-Earth obsession of the extreme left.

The campaign website began promoting the new ad on the same day Obama announced he would continue to freeze plans to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada to the United States.

The Obama ad also touts a reduction in the nation’s energy imports. “For the first time in thirteen years,” it claims, “our dependence on foreign oil is below fifty percent.”

But that decline was a natural outgrowth of the nation’s economic recession, which has curbed energy consumption.

So we are using less because we can’t afford  to use it. That’s good! according to Obama so what we really need is to use even less and we’ll be fantastic!!

Instead of increase supply lower demand.

Break out the Horse and Buggy! Or worse a Chevy Volt!!

Environmental Protection Agency rules requiring expensive boutique blends of gasoline for different states during different seasons could be scrapped.

So could the law burdening oil refiners with a requirement to use a nonexistent product: “cellulosic ethanol.”

State laws requiring — we’re not making this up — that gas stations not charge too little per gallon could also be repealed. And, of course, we should drill, baby, drill into some of America’s own vast, untapped oil reserves.

But Obama insists on blaming Big Oil for big government’s failures. He had Attorney General Eric Holder establish an as-yet-to-be-heard-from task force last year to investigate, for the umpteenth time, price gouging by oil companies — about as easy as finding cellulosic ethanol in a switch grass haystack.

And Obama’s “Jobs Council” this week conceded that more oil “pipeline, transmission and distribution projects are necessary” and that until fossil fuels are replaced many years from now, “we need to be all in.”

But when we won’t take a treasure trove of oil from next door — forcing Canada to sell it to China instead — it proves the president is “all in” his green-left political base’s pocket.(IBD, Townhall and others)

And it’s the Republicans Fault!

So Vote Obama! It’s everyone else’s fault!

 

 

 

Despite endless talk of spending cuts and fiscal restraint in Washington over the past year, lawmakers continued to act as though the government doesn’t spend nearly enough.

They introduced 874 bills in the House and Senate that would have boosted annual federal spending by more than $1 trillion if they’d all been signed into law, according to an analysis done for IBD by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation.

In contrast, lawmakers offered up just 215 bills to cut spending last year that would have reduced federal outlays by about half a trillion had they all been signed into law.

The analysis also found that for every dollar in cuts, lawmakers in the House proposed nearly $3 in spending hikes, and in the Senate $1.40 in hikes.

“Even at a time of massive deficits, Congress is still mostly occupied with pushing ideas to expand government spending,” said Demian Brady, senior policy analyst at the NTUF, which has been tracking spending bills for more than 20 years through its BillTally project.

Brady notes that a big chunk of the spending tab comes from proposals by liberals in Congress that would transform the nation’s health care into an entirely government-run “single payer” system. Absent those single-payer bills, the net effect of all the legislation introduced would be close to a wash.

The analysis also found a shift, at least, toward more spending cuts. “We are seeing more and bigger cut bills,” said Brady, “and a smaller ratio of increase to cut bills than in last Congress.”

That could change, however, should Democrats succeed in winning back control of the House in November.

The NTUF analysis found that congressional Democrats are by far the biggest spenders. Last year, 692 spending-hike bills had either all or majority Democratic sponsorship. Republicans, in contrast, sponsored just 126 such bills.

At the other end of the spectrum, GOP lawmakers introduced 172 bills that would have cut federal spending, compared with just 33 such bills offered up by Democrats.

Even if few of these bills were likely to make it all the way to the president’s desk, they are a sign of the ongoing pressure in Congress to boost spending, budget experts say, since there is far more time and energy spent on proposals to expand government than to shrink it.

It’s one reason budget caps have typically failed to hold in the past, and why proposed spending cuts often fail to materialize, these experts note.

For example, presidents routinely offer up dozens if not hundreds of programs they think should get the axe — President Clinton’s 1995 budget had 115 of them — but few ever got acted upon and many show up on target lists year after year.

And in the past 50 years, annual inflation-adjusted spending on domestic programs — education, transportation, the environment, etc. — has declined just six times; and five of those years occurred during the Reagan administration.

(and in California they want to spend $100 Billion dollars on a High Speed Rail that is a pure boondoggle–it used to be $10 billion when proposed- in a state with Budget deferrals, required reimbursements and related debt now total nearly $40 billion.)

As a result, spending on these programs as a share of GDP has climbed by more than 26% since 1962. That doesn’t include spending on entitlement programs, which has seen its share of the economy nearly triple over those years.

Defense spending, in contrast, is not nearly as immune to spending cuts — the Pentagon’s annual budget was cut in 19 of the past 50 years. And even with the recent buildup, defense spending as a share of the economy is about half what it was in 1962.

When President Obama introduced his budget last year, he made it clear that spending cuts were a critical part of getting federal deficits under control.

“All of us agree,” he said referring to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, “that we have to cut spending, and all of us agree that we have to get our deficits under control and our debt under control.”

But unless that message sinks in on Capitol Hill, it’s not clear that real, deep spending cuts will ever actually materialize. (IBD)

Because the lead Drug dealers (the drug: money) won’t cut themselves off. They have to pimp themselves and pimp others to keep their supply going.

And the others want to be pimped.

So the drug addict pimps the drug dependent and the drug dependent pimp the drug addict.

Cut the other guys “greed” but don’t you dare cut mine!

My drug dealer is ok, it the other guys jerks that need to be defeated.

And people like me who want to the whole thing to stop are shut out as “whackos” “racists” “morons” “stupid”.

Disparity Part II By Thomas Sowell

One of the ways of trying to reduce the vast disparities in economic success, which are common in countries around the world, is by making higher education more widely available, even for people without the money to pay for it.

This can be both a generous investment and a wise investment for a society to make. But, depending on how it is done, it can also be a foolish and even dangerous investment, as many societies around the world have learned the hard way.

When institutions of higher learning turn out highly qualified doctors, scientists, engineers and others with skills that can raise the standard of living of a whole society and make possible a better and longer life, the benefits are obvious.

What is not so obvious, but is painfully true nonetheless, is that colleges and universities can also turn out vast numbers of people with credentials, but with no marketable skills with which to fulfill their expectations. There is nothing magic about simply being in ivy-covered buildings for four years.

Statistics are often thrown around in the media, showing that people with college degrees earn higher average salaries than people without them. But such statistics lump together apples and oranges — and lemons.

A decade after graduation, people whose degrees were in a hard field like engineering earned twice as much as people whose degrees were in the ultimate soft field, education. Nor is a degree from a prestigious institution a guarantee of a big pay-off, especially not for those who failed to specialize in subjects that would give them skills valued in the real world.

But that is not even half the story. In countries around the world, people with credentials but no marketable skills have been a major source of political turmoil, social polarization and ideologically driven violence, sometimes escalating into civil war.

People with degrees in soft subjects, which impart neither skills nor a realistic understanding of the world, have been the driving forces behind many extremist movements with disastrous consequences.

These include what a noted historian called the “well-educated but underemployed” Czech young men who promoted ethnic identity politics in the 19th century, which led ultimately to historic tragedies for both Czechs and Germans in 20th century Czechoslovakia. It was much the same story of soft-subject “educated” but unsuccessful young men who promoted pro-fascist and anti-Semitic movements in Romania in the 1930s.

The targets have been different in different countries but the basic story has been much the same. Those who cannot compete in the marketplace, despite their degrees, not only resent those who have succeeded where they have failed, but push demands for preferential treatment, in order to negate the “unfair” advantages that others have.

Similar attempts to substitute political favoritism for developing one’s own skills and achievements have been common as well in India, Nigeria, Malaysia, Fiji, Sri Lanka and throughout Central Europe and Eastern Europe between the two World Wars.

Such political movements cannot promote their agendas without demonizing others, thereby polarizing whole societies. Time and again, their targets have been those who have the skills and achievements that they lack. When they achieve their ultimate success, forcing such people out of the country, as in Uganda in the 1970s or Zimbabwe more recently, the whole economy can collapse.

Against this international background, the current class warfare rhetoric in American politics and ethnic grievance ideology in our schools and colleges, can be seen as the dangerous things they are. Those who are pushing such things may be seeking nothing more than votes for themselves or some unearned group benefits at other people’s expense. But they are playing with dynamite.

The semi-literate sloganizing of our own Occupy Wall Street mobs recalls the distinction that Milton Friedman often made between those who are educated and those who have simply been in schools. Generating more such people, in the name of expanding education, may serve the interests of the Obama administration but hardly the interests of America.

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. —George Orwell

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever. —George Orwell

In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
—George Orwell

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
—George Orwell

And my own Contribution: FEAR IS HOPE