Left Wanting

Democrat Fear Hyperbole Update: DNC Chief Wasserman-Schultz: Ryan Budget Plan “Throws Young People to The Wolves”…

Newly-elected DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.) said Sunday that the recen tDemocratic victory in a special election in a conservative upstate New York district was evidence that voters across the country disapproved of the Republican proposal for Medicare which, she argued, would end the program “as we know it.”

In an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Wasserman-Schultz said that the GOP plan, outlined in Wis. Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposed 2012 budget, would unfairly target young Americans. (this from a party that hasn’t passed or proposed a budget since April 2009! and now refuses to pass one!)

“[Republicans] would take the people who are younger than 55 years old today and tell them, ‘You know what? You’re on your own. Go and find private health insurance in the health care insurance market. We’re going to throw you to the wolves, and allow insurance companies to deny you coverage and drop you for pre-existing conditions,’ ” Wasserman-Schultz told CBS’ Harry Smith. ” ‘We’re going to give you X amount of dollars and you figure it out.’

Expect it to get much, much worse! Much, much worse.

By next year the Republican will be kicking old people down the stairs and burying them in mass graves!

DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a master at dodging the questions of network news types (and she’s pretty cute, too)!  In this video, she just simply ignores the question outright and immediately launches into a diatribe of demagoguery, exposing the Democrats’ lack of a budget and desire to keep the focus on the GOP’s plan, which they perceive to be vastly unpopular  (To them! and their apparatchiks in the media).  Watch and learn from a master . . .

Thomas Sowell: One of the painfully revealing episodes in Barack Obama’s book “Dreams From My Father” describes his early experience listening to a sermon by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Among the things said in that sermon was that “white folks’ greed runs a world in need.” Obama was literally moved to tears by that sermon.

This sermon may have been like a revelation to Barack Obama but its explanation of economic and other differences was among the oldest– and most factually discredited– explanations of such difference among all sorts of peoples in all sorts of places. Yet it is an explanation that has long been politically seductive, in countries around the world.

What could be more emotionally satisfying than seeing others who have done better in the world as the villains responsible for your not having done as well? It is the ideal political explanation, from the standpoint of mass appeal, whether or not it makes any sense otherwise.

That has been the politically preferred explanation for economic differences between the Malay majority and the more prosperous Chinese minority in Malaysia, or between the Gentile majority and the Jewish minority in various countries in Europe between the two World Wars.

At various other times and places, it has been the preferred explanation for the economic differences between the Sinhalese and the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka, the Africans and the Lebanese in Sierra Leone, the Czechs and the Germans in Bohemia and numerous other groups in countries around the world.

The idea that the rich have gotten rich by making the poor poor has been an ideological theme that has played well in Third World countries, to explain why they lag so far behind the West.

None of this was original with Jeremiah Wright. All he added was his own colorful gutter style of expressing it, which so captivated the man who is now President of the United States.

There is obviously something there with very deep emotional appeal. Moreover, because nothing is easier to find than sins among human beings, there will never be a lack of evil deeds to make that explanation seem plausible.

Because the Western culture has been ascendant in the world in recent centuries, the image of rich white people and poor non-white people has made a deep impression, whether in theories of racial superiority– which were big among “progressives” in the early 20th century– or in theories of exploitation among “progressives” later on.

In a wider view of history, however, it becomes clear that, for centuries before the European ascendancy, Europe lagged far behind China in many achievements. Since neither of them changed much genetically between those times and the later rise of Europe, it is hard to reconcile this role reversal with racial theories.

More important, the Chinese were not to blame for Europe’s problems– which would not be solved until the Europeans themselves finally got their own act together, instead of blaming others. If they had listened to people like Jeremiah Wright, Europe might still be in the Dark Ages.

It is hard to reconcile “exploitation” theories with the facts. While there have been conquered peoples made poorer by their conquerors, especially by Spanish conquerors in the Western Hemisphere, in general most poor countries were poor for reasons that existed before the conquerors arrived. Some Third World countries are poorer today than they were when they were ruled by Western countries, generations ago.

False theories are not just an intellectual problem to be discussed around a seminar table in some ivy-covered building. When millions of people believe those theories, including people in high places, with the fate of nations in their hands, that is a serious and potentially disastrous fact of life.

Despite a carefully choreographed image of affability and cool, Barack Obama’s decisions and appointments as President betray an alienation from the values and the people of this country that are too disturbing to be answered by showing his birth certificate.

Too many of his appointees exhibit a similar alienation, including Attorney General Eric Holder, under whom the Dept. of Justice could more accurately be described as the Dept. of Payback.

Advertisements

Memorial Day 2011

Morning Breaks on Arlington – a poem by Orrin Hatch

Morning breaks on Arlington
Warmed by rays of golden sun
And all who pause in homage there
Feel a soft hush in the air

Those who love their liberty
Bow the head and bend the knee
And from their hearts they breathe a silent prayer
“Thank God for those who rest in honor there”

The lush green grass at Arlington
Shimmers in the morning sun
As pure white crosses seem to glow
Sentinels in perfect rows

Everyone who lives and breathes
Wonders at the sight of these
Who gave to us a gift beyond compare
“Thank God for those who rest in honor there.”

Home of the eternal flame
Of humble heroes without name
Whose graves are guarded day and night
Keeping memory burning bright

Those who gave so much for us
Bravely said, “In God We Trust”
Now they are safe in His eternal care
“Thank God for those who rest in honor there”

Our nation’s flag now takes the breeze
Waving over all of these
And heaven smiles upon each silent one
As morning softly breaks on Arlington.

Freedom is never free.

Freedom is a constant struggle. It is never a given.

Now more than it has been in generations.

And it needs you to join the fight to preserve it.

We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land — nor, perhaps, the sun or stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. That chart is the Constitution. – Daniel Webster

“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” – Samuel Adams

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. – Thomas Jefferson

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.
– Thomas Jefferson

If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy.– Thomas Jefferson

I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.-Thomas Jefferson

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Welcome Back, 1970’s

Media reports in recent weeks say that Senate Democrats are considering a 3% surtax on income over $1 million to raise federal revenues. This would come on top of the higher income tax rates that President Obama has already proposed through the cancellation of the Bush era tax-rate reductions.

If the Democrats’ millionaire surtax were to happen—and were added to other tax increases already enacted last year and other leading tax hike ideas on the table this year—this could leave the U.S. with a combined federal and state top tax rate on earnings of 62%. That’s more than double the highest federal marginal rate of 28% when President Reagan left office in 1989. Welcome back to the 1970s.

Here’s the math behind that depressing calculation. Today’s top federal income tax rate is 35%. Almost all Democrats in Washington want to repeal the Bush tax cuts on those who make more than $250,000 and phase out certain deductions, so the effective income tax rate would rise to about 41.5%. The 3% millionaire surtax raises that rate to 44.5%.

moore

But payroll taxes, which are income taxes on wages and salaries, must also be included in the equation. So we have to add about 2.5 percentage points for the payroll tax for Medicare (employee and employer share after business deductions), which was applied to all income without a ceiling in 1993 as part of the Clinton tax hike. I am including in this analysis the employer share of all payroll taxes because it is a direct tax on a worker’s salary and most economists agree that though employers are responsible for collecting this tax, it is ultimately borne by the employee. That brings the tax rate to 47%.

Then last year, as part of the down payment for ObamaCare, Congress snuck in an extra 0.9% Medicare surtax on “high-income earners,” meaning any individual earning more than $200,000 or couples earning more than $250,000. This brings the total tax rate to 47.9%.

But that’s not all. Several weeks ago, Mr. Obama raised the possibility of eliminating the income ceiling on the Social Security tax, now capped at $106,800 of earnings a year. (Never mind that the program was designed to operate as an insurance system, with each individual’s payment tied to the benefits paid out at retirement.) Subjecting all wage and salary income to Social Security taxes would add roughly 10.1 percentage points to the top tax rate. This takes the grand total tax rate on each additional dollar earned in America to about 58%.

Then we have to factor in state income taxes, which on average add after the deductions from the federal income tax roughly another four percentage points to the tax burden. So now on average we are at a tax rate of close to 62%.

Democrats have repeatedly stated they only intend to restore the tax rates that existed during the Clinton years. But after all these taxes on the “rich,” we’re headed back to the taxes that prevailed under Jimmy Carter, when the highest tax rate was 70%.

Taxes on investment income are also headed way up. Suspending the Bush tax cuts, which is favored by nearly every congressional Democrat, plus a 3.8% investment tax in the ObamaCare bill (which starts in 2014) brings the capital gains tax rate to 23.8% from 15%. The dividend tax would potentially climb to 45% from the current rate of 15%.

Now let’s consider how our tax system today compares with the system that was in place in the late 1980s—when the deficit was only about one-quarter as large as a share of GDP as it is now. After the landmark Tax Reform Act of 1986, which closed special-interest loopholes in exchange for top marginal rates of 28%, the highest combined federal-state marginal tax rate was about 33%. Now we may be headed to 62%. You don’t have to be Jack Kemp or Arthur Laffer to understand that a 29 percentage point rise in top marginal rates would make America a highly uncompetitive place.

What is particularly worrisome about this trend is the deterioration of the U.S. tax position relative to the rest of our economic rivals. In 1990, the highest individual income tax rate of our major economic trading partners was 51%, while the U.S. was much lower at 33%. It’s no wonder that during the 1980s and ’90s the U.S. created more than twice as many new jobs as Japan and Western Europe combined.

It’s true that the economy was able to absorb the Bush 41 and Clinton tax hikes and still grow at a very rapid pace. But what the soak-the-rich lobby ignores is how different the world is today versus the early 1990s. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, over the past two decades the average highest tax rate among the 20 major industrial nations has fallen to about 45%. Yet the highest U.S. tax rate would rise to more than 48% under the Obama/Democratic tax hikes. To make matters worse, if we include the average personal income tax rates of developing countries like India and China, the average tax rate around the world is closer to 30%, according to a new study by KPMG.

What all this means is that in the late 1980s, the U.S. was nearly the lowest taxed nation in the world, and a quarter century later we’re nearly the highest.

Despite all of this, the refrain from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and most of the Democrats in Congress is our fiscal mess is a result of “tax cuts for the rich.” When? Where? Who? The Tax Foundation recently noted that in 2009 the U.S. collected a higher share of income and payroll taxes (45%) from the richest 10% of tax filers than any other nation, including such socialist welfare states as Sweden (27%), France (28%) and Germany (31%). And this was before the rate hikes that Democrats are now endorsing.

Perhaps there can still be a happy ending to this sad tale of U.S. decline. If there were ever a right time to trade in the junk heap of our federal tax code for a pro-growth Steve Forbes-style flat tax, now’s the time.

With economic malaise, you’d swear Jimmy Carter was President….

We can tax people to death and then spend it on the “poor” without end and everything will be great!  <wink wink>

And these business owners would be happy to hire you now… 😦

 

Persistance

I was woken up in the middle of the night think about something that Morgan Gendel (Star Trek: TNG’s “Inner Light”) said during his talk at Phoenix Comic Con today.

Persistance.

That’s what got him the job.

Sure he had to please the masses of people who worked for the show, but he pitched this now classic episode to the same people 5 times.

And it got me to thinking about the Republicans.

Those scared little boys who just want to be liked.

The one that will be eaten alive by a ravenous pack of Liberal “journalists”.

The idea that they will try and play to the middle so much that they will nominate a RINO (Republican in Name Only) again like Sen. McCain as their nominee again.

Then they will lose. The country will lose and history will lose. Time itself will lose. Humanity will lose.

The person who beats Obama will have to look into the teeth of the ravenous plague of piranhas and persist.

They will have to look the very face of Fear and Death in the face.

They will have to be willing to be atomized by the most ravenous levels of hatred, fear and bile.

Because, who every runs against the GOD of the Liberal Left will have endure all of these things and persist.

The Left and The Media are not our friends. They are a remorseless pack of wild raptors hunting in packs to rip apart any potential prey that gets in their way.

That is quite a daunting challenge.

But if it’s not well met and defeated, The Dark Side Wins.

You think they are insufferably arrogant now, just wait until even after all the shit they have piled on and still they win in November 2012 there will be no stopping them or their egos.

Orwell’s Nightmare will be an optimistic vision when these clowns are down with you.

So, if you’re a Conservative, A Libertarian, or just a Moderate who does not want to see The Darkness win you must be willing to start the very face of Fear and Death in the Face and WIN.

A RINO will be shredded not only by the Liberals and Their Liberal Media Machine, but by me, and people like me, your humble Tea Party Conservative.

You don’t have us in the bag.

Remember that.

You put up a RINO, a “safe” candidate that will have “middle of the road” appeal and you will lose!

Period. End of story. End of Country.

You want to be “safe” in your political games and elitism. You’ll lose.

But it is incumbent on us, the humble “average voter” to make sure that no RINO is put forth also.

We have our part to play and we have our own battle to win.

We must persist also.

We must get what WE WANT, not what Washington thinks we want. Or what some over-priced political consultants thinks will get those “20% in the middle”.

We must Survive the coming Armageddon that will reign down upon us by the hoardes of Hell from the Left and we must persist.

Or else, all hope is truly lost.

So get ready for battle.

It won’t be safe, it won’t be kind.

But it is a battle that must be fought and it must be won.

For your sake, for you kids sake for your grandkids and kids not yet borns’ sake.

Because even if we win, the Forces of Hell will just regroup and come again and again and again and we must fight them until THEY give up not when we declare victory.

Otherwise, it’s over, turn out the lights, and that shining beacon upon the hill that has been America will be forever extinguished.

Simple.

If you are going through hell, keep going. — Winston Churchill

As the Congressional Republicans have attempted to pass a budget that tackles our pending deficit and Medicare crises, Democrats have become quite adept at shooting down budgets while not bothering to propose any practical solutions of their own (today would be day 758, I believe?). It is understandable, though, that they just do not have the time to worry about a federal budget, since they are so darn busy coddling the general welfare. The latest legislation? Forget the budget; we need even more federal standards for sunscreen lotion labels! The Hill has the story:

“As families prepare for Memorial Day festivities, and plan outings this summer, most will be outdoors without adequate sun protection, even if they use sunscreen,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the sponsor, said this week. “This is because there are currently no rules that sunscreen makers must follow when making claims about the level of protection their products provide.”

The bill, S. 1064, would require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to finalize its 2007 proposal mandating that sunscreen labels disclose the extent to which the product protects against ultraviolet rays known as UVA rays. UVA rays can penetrate the skin more deeply than UVB rays, but currently, sunscreen labels are not required to tell consumers how they protect against UVA rays.

Aside from Reed, the bill is sponsored by several Democratic heavy-hitters, including Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.), Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rules and Administration Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-NY). First-term Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) is also a sponsor.

According to Reed, forcing the application of the FDA proposal would require labels to “disclose the level of UVA protection in a standard format that appears near the sun protection factor rating, and ensure that the SPF rating actually corresponds to a product’s protection against UVB rays.”

The bill would require the proposed FDA rule to take effect within 180 days after it became law.

“I look forward to a summer when Americans can finally feel protected from the sun’s harmful rays,” Reed said.

Well, what a relief that Senator Jack Reed is looking out for me, because otherwise, I would have had no way of knowing about the subtle differences in the sun blockage provided between SPF 75 and SPF 85 (hint: there are none), and never mind the numerous studies that suggest that sunscreen may actually accelerate cancer. Good grief! While this legislation was originally proposed in 2007, this is just a taste of what will happen if the looming menace of Obamacare stays on schedule: since I know that I will not have to feel the full costs of getting any skin cancer spots surgically removed, I have less of an incentive to limit my sun exposure. I know that “society” will pay for it, so I will not take conscious action to lessen my future demand for health care, and the system will become overburdened and expensive. Hence, it becomes the federal government’s job to make decisions about my welfare for me and further encumber the mind-blowing bureaucracy that rules our lives. But hey, even if I cannot afford to buy sunscreen because of federal spending, higher taxes, and a wracked economy, at least I will be able to understand the labels. (Erika Johnsen)

It’s your choice. You cannot do this because it will be easy, and neither can the Republicans.

It will not be.

The very mouth of Hell and Damnation will open upon any who dare to challenge the might and the righteousness of The Holy Left.

Thems just the facts,ma’am.

Deal with it.

And then Persist.

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Lost One!

Up Yours Eric! In your face Janet! F*ck you Barack!

Most recently, the Obama administration decided to challenge the 2007 Arizona immigration law and has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the provision. But what is a little known fact to most Americans is that it was <Supreme Court Justice and Former Solicitor General> Kagan who was the originator and driving force behind the Obama administration’s decision to ask the Court to overturn the Arizona immigration law. Kagan recently admitted as much in required disclosures to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Told you see was a political appointee, an apparatchik, a stooge.

The administration argued that Arizona’s law revoking the business licenses of businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants is unconstitutional. But this argument is completely baseless as the two lower courts already confirmed.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has sustained Arizona’s law that penalizes businesses for hiring workers who are in the United States illegally, rejecting arguments that states have no role in immigration matters.

By a 5-3 vote, the court said Thursday that federal immigration law gives states the authority to impose sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers.

The decision upholding the validity of the 2007 law comes as the state is appealing a ruling that blocked key components of a second, more controversial Arizona immigration enforcement law. Thursday’s decision applies only to business licenses and does not signal how the high court might rule if the other law comes before it.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a majority made up of Republican-appointed justices, said the Arizona’s employer sanctions law “falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states.”

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, all Democratic appointees, dissented. The fourth Democratic appointee, Justice Elena Kagan, did not participate in the case because she worked on it while serving as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general.

Breyer said the Arizona law upsets a balance in federal law between dissuading employers from hiring illegal workers and ensuring that people are not discriminated against because they may speak with an accent or look like they might be immigrants.

Employers “will hesitate to hire those they fear will turn out to lack the right to work in the United States,” he said.

When ICE does engage in worksite enforcement actions, it allows the illegal workers simply to walk down the street to the next employer to seek employment.  If the federal government is abdicating its responsibility to enforce our immigrations laws, how can the administration protest when individual states seek to protect their residents?

Business interests and civil liberties groups challenged the law, backed by the Obama administration.

The measure was signed into law in 2007 by Democrat Janet Napolitano, then the governor of Arizona and now the administration’s Homeland Security secretary.

The employer sanctions law has been only infrequently used. It was intended to diminish Arizona’s role as the nation’s hub for immigrant smuggling by requiring employers to verify the eligibility of new workers through a federal database. Employers found to have violated the law can have their business licenses suspended or revoked.

Lower courts, including the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, previously upheld the law.

The case is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 09-115.

Even more so, the American people deserve to have Supreme Court decisions rendered by justices who adhere to the Constitution, not politics.

But that’s not how Liberals work. And it sure as hell isn’t how Barack & Co work.

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler


Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Supremacy

In the old days, you could say “Don’t Mess with Texas”.

Now they’ll just wimp out.

An astounding Department of Justice threat to cancel airline flights to and from Texas, in addition to underhanded lobbying by TSA representatives, has killed efforts in the state to pass HB 1937, a bill that would have made invasive pat downs by TSA agents a felony.

HB 1937, a bill that would have made it “A criminal act for security personnel to touch a person’s private areas without probable cause as a condition of travel or as a condition of entry into a public place,” was headed for an imminent Senate vote in Texas having already passed the House unanimously 138-0, before the federal government stepped in to nix the legislation.

In a letter sent to Texas lawmakers, including to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, Speaker Joe Straus, the House Clerk, and the Senate Secretary, U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy threatened to cripple the airline industry in the state if legislators did not back down.

“If HR [sic] 1937 were enacted, the federal government would likely seek an emergency stay of the statute,” Murphy wrote. “Unless or until such a stay were granted, TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of passengers and crew.”

“We urge that you consider the ramifications of this bill before casting your vote,” Murphy added.

The fact that Murphy can’t even get the name of the bill correct is almost as disconcerting as the rampant mafia-like attitude of the DOJ in using de facto economic terrorism to shoot down the legislation.

Following a fiery debate in the Texas House last night, Senate sponsor Dan Patrick (R-Houston) pulled the bill, remarking that TSA representatives had been “lobbying” the Texas Senate in an effort to mothball the legislation.

“I will pull HB 1937 down, but I will stand for Liberty in the state of Texas,” Patrick said.

Patrick added that TSA officials had warned him passing the bill “could close down all the airports in Texas,” which he regarded as a ‘heavy handed threat’ by the federal government.

The staff of Rep. David Simpson said the DOJ had “thrown down the gauntlet” in using such stark language to oppose the bill.

“Either Texas backs off and continues to let government employees fondle innocent women, children and men as a condition of travel,” the staff wrote, “or the TSA [Transportation Safety Administration] has the authority to cancel flights or series of flights.”

“… 97 percent of people who go though the nation’s airports do not go through these offensive searches. And yet, a United States Attorney warns that flights to Texas could be shut down because TSA would not be able to ensure the safety of passengers and crew if agents could not touch genitals. Someone must make a stand against the atrocities of our government agents …”

So Texas is safe for legalize sexual harrassment. Hurray!

But it also shows how authoritarian governments operate.

The fact that the Department of Justice and the TSA have resorted to threats of economic terrorism in addition to underhanded lobbying techniques again illustrates the fact that the federal government is increasingly behaving like a criminal enterprise with total disregard for the Constitution.

The TSA’s initial response to HB 1937 was to claim that it could not become law because it violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article. VI. Clause 2), a law that the TSA claimed “prevents states from regulating the federal government.” (infowars)

Supremacy Clause?

Where have I heard that one before? 🙂

Texas has no authority to regulate federal agents and employees in the performance of their federal duties or to pass a statute that conflicts with federal law,” Murphy said in the letter, saying the federal government would seek a court order to prevent enforcement of the law if passed.

Until that occurred, “TSA would likely be required to cancel any flight or series of flights for which it could not ensure the safety of the passengers and crew.”

Funny, I’ve heard those words before….SB1070 and Illegal immigration anyone… 😦

A boisterous group of protesters angry over the Texas Senate’s failure to vote on the airport groping bill tried to enter the public gallery this afternoon and were blocked by state troopers.

Shouting “treason” and “cowards” and carrying signs and placards, and led by radio talk show host Alex Jones, the group of perhaps as many as 100 people entered the State Capitol shortly after 3 p.m. and first went to the House chamber.

There, House members quickly informed the shouting group that it was the Senate that had failed to take action late Tuesday on House Bill 1937, which would have made it a crime for security checkpoint screeners to handle the private parts of anyone they screened. (so the House members through the Senate under the bus…)

The group then marched to the Senate side of the Capitol and tried to enter the third-floor public gallery. Troopers with arms folded blocked them from entry.

They stood outside for several minutes, chanting: “Co-wards, co-wards,” Trea-son, trea-son,” and shouted slogans accusing senators and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst of being “federal pimps” and “scallawag trash.”

They vowed to vote out of office Dewhurst and the senators who opposed passage of the bill.

After shouting chants for about 30 minutes, the group left and troopers reopened the gallery doors. The activists then went to other parts of the Capitol to continue their protest.

Dewhurst has said the bill did not have the votes to pass, a fact he learned after the debate began. Patrick pulled down the bill from consideration after the debate began, and a vote never took place. The bill had lost support after senators had learned that federal officials had warned that such ban would violate federal law and could bring court challenges and airport shutdowns.

“Someone who will not stand up to the federal government, you have to ask yourself, is that the kind of person we need in the U.S. Senate?” Patrick said this afternoon, saying the bill is dead. (statesman.com)

The culprit apparently, the Lt. Governor who is running for the US Senate. I guess he didn’t want to tick off his hoped-to-be-future dictators in arms. And this idiot is a Republican?

I’m sure the rights of the people in Texas were foremost on his mind. 😦

In other words, “Don’t mess with Texas…as long as it’s not a challenge to the supremacy of  Washington then we’ll cave like a rotten jalapeno”

The Bully pulpit wins again.

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

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Keep ’em Down

Thomas Sowell: Those who regard government “entitlement” programs as sacrosanct, and regard those who want to cut them back as calloused or cruel, picture a world very different from the world of reality.

To listen to some of the defenders of entitlement programs, which are at the heart of the present financial crisis, you might think that anything the government fails to provide is something that people will be deprived of.

In other words, if you cut spending on school lunches, children will go hungry. If you fail to subsidize housing, people will be homeless. If you fail to subsidize prescription drugs, old people will have to eat dog food in order to be able to afford their meds.

This is the vision promoted by many politicians and much of the media. But, in the world of reality, it is not even true for most people who are living below the official poverty line.

Most Americans living below the official poverty line own a car or truck– and government entitlement programs seldom provide cars and trucks. Most people living below the official poverty line also have air conditioning, color television and a microwave oven–and these too are not usually handed out by government entitlement programs.

Cell phones and other electronic devices are by no means unheard of in low-income neighborhoods, where children would supposedly go hungry if there were no school lunch programs. In reality, low-income people are overweight even more often than other Americans.

As for housing and homelessness, housing prices are higher and homelessness a bigger problem in places where there has been massive government intervention, such as liberal bastions like New York City and San Francisco. As for the elderly, 80 percent are homeowners. whose monthly housing costs are less than $400, including property taxes, utilities, and maintenance.

The desperately poor elderly conjured up in political and media rhetoric are– in the world of reality– the wealthiest segment of the American population. The average wealth of older households is nearly three times the wealth of households headed by people in the 35 to 44-year-old bracket, and more than 15 times the wealth of households headed by someone under 35 years of age.

If the wealthiest segment of the population cannot pay their own medical bills, who can? The country as a whole is not any richer because the government pays our medical bills– with money that it takes from us.

What about the truly poor, in whatever age brackets? First of all, even in low-income and high-crime neighborhoods, people are not stealing bread to feed their children. The fraction of the people in such neighborhoods who commit most of the crimes are far more likely to steal luxury products that they can either use or sell to get money to support their parasitic lifestyle.

As for the rest of the poor, Professor Walter Williams of George Mason University long ago showed that you could give the poor enough money to lift them all above the official poverty line for a fraction of what it costs to support a massive welfare state bureaucracy.

We don’t need to send the country into bankruptcy, in the name of the poor, by spending trillions of dollars on people who are not poor, and who could take care of themselves. The poor have been used as human shields behind which the expanding welfare state can advance.

The goal is not to keep the poor from starving but to create dependency, because dependency translates into votes for politicians who play Santa Claus.

We have all heard the old saying about how giving a man a fish feeds him for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Independence makes for a healthier society, but dependency is what gets votes for politicians.

For politicians, giving a man a fish every day of his life is the way to keep getting his vote. “Entitlement” is just a fancy word for dependency.

As for the scary stories politicians tell, in order to keep the entitlement programs going, as long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

But give hima fish every day, maybe he will vote for you to give him more fish!

And after all, that’s what really matters. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok