Two Face

The Sky is falling and we’re going to make you suffer for the sequester by ratcheting up the pain and the fear.

BUT…we will give millions to a Nation run by Terrorists that we helped create!!!!

Calling it a “good-faith effort” to help the Egyptian people, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry released $250 million in economic aid.

Oh, and after 4 years and 7,000 comments I was banned from The Huffington post for “offensive” and “abusive” ad hominem attacks.

Ever been there? It’s nothing BUT offensive and abusive ad hominem attacks.

Liberals are so two-faced.

Speaking of the Sky is not Falling…

The White House is retreated from its doomsday predictions about the impact of the $85 billion in federal spending cuts as they enter a second week — with Republican leaders appearing at least satisfied about delivering on their promise to limit government spending and hold down taxes.

Gene Sperling, the White House’s top economic adviser, repeatedly said Sunday the cuts will not hurt as much on “Day One” as they will over the long haul.   

“Nobody ever suggested that this … was going to have all its impact in the first few days,” he told “NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It is a slow grind.”

His remarks are in contrast to weeks of President Obama and his Cabinet warning that the cuts will result in furloughs or pay cuts for middle-class wage-earners such as teachers, Capitol Hill janitors and air traffic controllers, which they said could cause 90-minutes delays at major U.S. airports.

Sperling declined at least twice to directly answer questions about whether the worst-case-scenario rhetoric has hurt the president’s credibility on the issue. He instead stuck to his argument that independent economists forecast the cuts will result in 750,000 fewer jobs and that corporate executives now anticipate slower economic growth.

“These are not the Sky is Falling! Doomsday Predictions you are looking for….” (ala Star Wars at Mos Eisley).
Oh no! it will be slower than the slowest recovery in 80 years!
Martha, bar the door, the Apocalypse is here!

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told CNN’s “State of the Union” Americans absorbed similar cuts once already this year.

“This modest reduction of 2.4 percent in spending over the next six months is a little more than the average American experienced just two months ago, when their own pay went down when the payroll tax holiday expired,” the Kentucky Republican said.

Congress agreed to the cuts, known as sequester, in 2011 after failing to agree on more measure reductions — to defense and some domestic spending. However, the cuts were intended to be so drastic that Democrats and Republicans would be forced to compromise before they started.

Still, Sperling rejected several Republican-backed plans and said no compromise would be reached unless the party agrees to tax increases.

My way or the Highway!
“This is not a win for Republicans,” Sperling said. “This cuts into military preparedness.”

BUT liberals hate the military and want to slash it to the bone anyhow! This is EXACTLY what they wanted. Which is why it was in e Sequester to make the Republicans blink in the first place.
“Our hope is as more Republicans start to see this pain in their own districts they will choose bipartisan compromise over this absolutist position,” he said.

Aka, we’ll ratchet up the pain and make them do it our way or ELSE you’ll “Regret it”! 🙂
And our absolutist position on the need for more Tax increases is non-negotiable and not bi-partisan nor a compromise!!
So Two Faced…

DON’T DO AS I DO, DO AS I SAY!

But because the next great Crisis to end civilization is coming….

All of this comes ahead of a new, March 27 deadline that could spell a government shutdown and a debt-ceiling clash coming in May.

And, of course it will be the Republicans fault. The Democrats are perfectly reasonable about their absolutist fear mongering.
And Grandma will out in the cold eating dog food.
Republicans will be stealing candy from babies.
You’ll have no cops or firefighters.
They’ll make you wait an extra 90 minutes at the airport.
More Illegals we wanted to release anyways will be released.
We’ll stop pretending we care about the border.
And you’ll get even more horse in your meat.
AND IT WILL BE ALL YOUR FAULT!
So Blame the Republicans!
Blame the Rich!
Blame Corporate America!
But don’t you Ever dare to blame Obama and The Democrats!
You’ll “regret” that if you do, you racist, homophobic, misogynist, Obstructionist TEA BAGGER idiot. You piece of human filth!
And just imagine what it will be like when they are forced to cut spending?
The billions in cuts apply to the remainder of fiscal 2013, which ends Sept. 30. But without a deal they will continue slashing government spending by about $1 trillion more over a 10-year period.

That’s 100 Billion a year. Obama and Democrats blow through that in 20 days.
So what big deal…
All Hail Armageddon! 🙂
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

The Grand Distraction

Wanna know how warped the Left is?

From here…

“As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.”

President Dwight D. Eisenhower (D)
Farewell Address to the Nation; January 17, 1961

To Eternity…

Here are Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:

    The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (He did vote for TARP, which increased the debt limit by $700 billion.)

I guess he was running for President by then…funny that…It was all for show. He didn’t mean it then, he was just be a partisan contrarian, and he doesn’t mean it now.

Now you get the latest and most whacked….

Actor Danny Glover (who I respect as an actor only) folks.

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” he said. “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.”

“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the second amendment is,” he continued.

It isn’t. But it feeds the ideological beast so it must be true.

Alleged Non-Liberal “Journalist” CBS’s Bob Schieffer: The NRA are Nazis.

The Obama era of liberal civility just keeps on getting better. A gun control discussion that should be about policy has once again given way to leftist bloodlust. As usual, everything with them becomes personal. The multi-billionth example comes from CBS correspondent Bob Schieffer. Stressing the urgency to restrict the freedoms of law-abiding citizens, Schieffer lamented that “defeating the Nazis, was a much more formidable task than taking on the gun lobby.”

BOB SCHIEFFER: …Let’s remember: there was considerable opposition when Lyndon Johnson went to the Congress and…presented some of the most comprehensive civil rights legislation in the history of this country. Most people told him he couldn’t get it done, but he figured out a way to do it. And that’s what Barack Obama is going to have to do…what happened in Newtown was probably the worst day in this country’s history since 9/11. We found Osama bin Laden. We tracked him down. We changed the way that we dealt with that problem. Surely, finding Osama bin Laden; surely, passing civil rights legislation, as Lyndon Johnson was able to do; and before that, surely, defeating the Nazis, was a much more formidable task than taking on the gun lobby.

SCHIEFFER: This is a turning point in this country, and the President is going to have to do more than just make a speech about it. This is one of the best speeches I’ve ever heard him deliver, but it’s going to take more than that from the White House. He’s going to have to get his hands dirty. He’s going to have to get in there and – and work this problem until he gets it done. But unless we figure out a way to make sure that something like Newtown never happens again, we’re not the country that we once were. I think we still are. I think there’s hope. I think something’s going to happen here.

So being for the Second Amendment is now Racist and Nazi-esque. Gee, where has this process of mental limitation occurred before on the left?

Every time they want something from their ideological grab-bag.

Fascinating.

So yet again, if you disagree with the LEFT eventually you are are a Racist Nazi in the end. 🙂

IBD: President Obama has settled on a political communications strategy for his final term that begins Sunday:

Talk about admirable aspirations, ignore the nation’s economic and fiscal realities, keep everyone fighting amongst themselves over anything at hand while calmly deploring all the disputes, rancor and chaos that this president has helped to engineer.

“My starting point is not to worry about the politics,” Obama said with a straight face. “My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works, what should we be doing to make sure that our children are safe and that we’re reducing the incidents of gun violence.”

Everyone faint in awe of HIS GREATNESS, The King.

Such stunning cynicism has actually worked pretty well for the Real Good Talker this past year.

Never mind stratospheric millions of jobless, an amazingly ineffective economic stimulus program, historic highs in poverty rates, a national debt larger than a national economy and nearly 50 million people collecting food stamps tossed out like free candy from a parade float.

Instead, talk about educating every single American child for their own fair shot at some kind of idealized future, delivering better healthcare to millions more people for less money with no additional doctors and protecting ill-defined middle-class Americans from someone doing something to them.

None of it will ever come to pass on his grand rhetorical scale. But the community organizer doesn’t care. By the time enough figure it out, Obama will be back in the Pacific golfing with Choom Gang buddies while another ghostwriter drafts the next autobiography.

Now that he’s got Washington and Republicans fighting over how to address his briefly postponed sequester cuts and a national debt that grows by $2.8 million every single minute of every single day, Obama this morning launches his next divisive distraction: More controls on firearms.

While the media has been full of stories of booming post-election gun sales, less attention has been focused on another fact: As the estimated count of non-military U.S. firearms now exceeds 310 million, the annual number of gun homicides has declined strikingly: From more than 17,000 in 1993 to 9,900 in 2011.

No one believes that anything Washington orders will stop the awful occasional outbreaks by a few twisted souls among the more than 315 million Americans. But it’s admirable to try, isn’t it? It sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? Can you prove it won’t work?

And fortuitously for Obama and his mob from Chicago, the nation’s newest gun homicide capital, a renewed emotional if useless, constitutional debate over bearing arms will keep folks from discussing other issues potentially more embarrassing to this White House.

Like Benghazi. Fast & Furious. Unemployment. Inflation. Foreign Policy. Energy Policy. ObamaCare…

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

 

Over the Cliff

More from “Jar Jar Binks” Boehner:

Under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio), the 112th House of Representatives has thus far approved legislation that has increased the debt of the federal government by approximately $18,944 for per American household.

The 112th House of Representatives has achieved this in a little more than 20 months time—and it may not be done yet enacting laws to approve new federal borrowing and spending.

On March 1, 2011, Boehner and President Barack Obama cut their first short-term federal spending deal. That deal took effect on March 4, 2011. Since then all new borrowing and spending by the federal government has been approved in laws enacted by Boehner’s House consistent with its constitutional power to control the borrowing and spending by the federal government. (KFYI)

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

AP
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): There’s a lot of talk right now about an impending fiscal cliff. But we already went over a cliff economically in this country a long time ago.The current debate over tax hikes is an empty one built upon a false premise. The debate is whether raising tax rates will address our current crisis. The premise is that it is a lack of taxation that has led to the crisis. Both are hopelessly wrong.President Obama’s proposed tax increases on the top 2% of earners would fund the federal government for about eight days. Even if we taxed Americans earning over $1 million on 100% of their income, we would raise only about $600 billion in revenue.

Taxing citizens at this level is a tyranny even Europe hasn’t reached, and still it would only address about one-third of our deficit.

If one actually does the math, “taxing the rich” turns out to be no real solution at all, only fantasyland rhetoric.

Every dollar the government takes is another dollar used unproductively. Every dollar removed from the private sector and wasted in the hands of bureaucrats is a dollar that will not be used to purchase goods, to pay for services or to meet a payroll.

Every dollar the government ever takes — today, tomorrow and forever — is an attack on jobs and the economy.

Instead of sitting around trying to think of new ways to vote away someone else’s money, Washington leaders should finally begin to address the real crisis that has threatened us long before the current handwringing: spending.

With a $16 trillion national debt and well over $1 trillion annually in deficits, we barreled over the edge of fiscal insolvency long before this month.

Why do we lurch from deadline to deadline with no apparent action on our nation’s problems until the next deadline approaches? I presented Social Security and Medicare reform to the Senate over a year ago. I directly spoke to the president and vice president about my plan. And their response? Absolutely nothing!

Is it any wonder people are fed up with their government? The president announces we have no time for spending reforms, but when the deadline passes I predict not one committee will step into the breach to begin the process of reform.

Why? Because Democratic leadership still insists that Social Security and Medicare are just fine. Meanwhile, Social Security actuaries tell us that Social Security this year will spend $165 billion more than it receives. Medicare will spend $3 for every $1 it collects. Yet, the president says he doesn’t have time for entitlement reform.

The “fiscal cliff” scenario has come and gone. The only question now is: How do we recover?

The only solution is to cut spending. It’s no secret to anyone, except perhaps Washington leaders, that our current levels of spending are not only unsustainable, but the main culprit in our fiscal crisis.

Opponents of spending reductions — whether Democrats who insist on maintaining and expanding current domestic spending, or Republicans who insist on maintaining and expanding current Pentagon spending — make the case that any cuts to their preferred parts of government would be “Draconian” or “devastating.”

Like tax hikes, this too is a false narrative. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nominal spending in 2008 was $2.5 trillion. The outlays for the 2013 budget are an estimated $3.5 trillion.

This means the federal government plans on spending $1 trillion more next year than it did four years ago. By any measure, this is a significant and dramatic growth in spending.

Estimated revenue for 2013 is $2.9 trillion if the Bush tax cuts expire. Our 2012 revenues were $2.4 trillion, which included the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts would only make a difference of $500 billion this year — about one third of our entire deficit — but would also further harm our economy due to the job market decline that always accompanies any rise in taxes. History has proved this point time and again.

But if we spent only at 2008 levels combined with the revenues of 2012, next year we would have a deficit as small as $89 billion. An $89 billion deficit would represent less than 1% of GDP. The 2012 deficit was as high as 7.3% of GDP.

Did anyone think the size of government we had in 2008 was somehow not enough government? This is how drastically spending has increased in just the last four years.

Those who argue we can’t cut spending are basically saying that our federal government was far too small when Barack Obama entered the White House and that now we can survive only if government continues to spend at its current level. I know few if any Americans who honestly believe this, Republican or Democrat.

It’s also hard to imagine reasonable people actually believing that our government spending this obscene amount of money is somehow what makes our economy tick.

A real plan would extend the tax rates we’ve had for 12 years, reform entitlements and examine any and every way to significantly cut spending. Right now, House GOP leadership seems to want Republicans to be the party that raises taxes just a little less than the Democrats. This will not do.

Republicans are supposed to be the party of limited government and low taxes. These are our most core and basic principles. I don’t think it’s time to change who we are or what we stand for. It will not help our economy. It will also defeat the purpose of even having a Republican Party.

And that’s what Sith Lord Obama wants, By the way… “Those are not the Spending Cuts you are looking for…”:)
Sith Apprentice Harry Reid: “Now is the time to show leadership, not kick the can down the road,” Reid said. “Speaker Boehner should focus his energy on forging a large-scale deficit reduction agreement. It would be a shame if Republicans abandoned productive negotiations due to pressure from the tea party, as they have time and again.” (NBC)
But nothing the Democrats propose actually cuts spending or the deficit in anyway that is actually meaningful. But that’s the trick.
Make the stupid people think that it is meaningful and the Republicans are getting in the way so they take the fall for it when it fails miserably.
It’s tactical. not practical.
Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals: Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have.
“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
So Boehner Proposes and Obama and Reid Dispose, even if it’s a plan that essentially mimics on their own it still is “protecting the rich” and is not “good enough”.
Simple. 🙂

“He (President Barack Obama) is not willing to accept a deal that doesn’t ask enough of the very wealthiest in taxes and instead shifts the burden to the middle class and seniors,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. “The president is hopeful that both sides can work out remaining differences and reach a solution so we don’t miss the opportunity in front of us today.”

Boehner’s spokesman said: “The White House’s position defies common sense.”

“After spending months saying we must ask for more from millionaires and billionaires, how can they reject a plan that does exactly that?” spokesman Brendan Buck said. “By once again moving the goal posts, the president is threatening every American family with higher taxes.”

Because that isn’t the goal, Jar Jar. This is Chess not Poker. Simple, really. 🙂
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

The Mindset

Our Government, which art in Washington,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done in Washington,
As it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread (food stamps, welfare, unemployment,entitlements…).
And forgive us our successes without you,
As we Don’t forgive them that disagree with us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil capitalism
For thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever.

Amen.

(excuse the blasphemy) 🙂

Mr. Thrill Up His Leg MSDNC’s Chris Matthews on Obama (His God):“Everything he’s done is clean as a whistle. He’s never not only broken any law, he’s never done anything wrong. He’s the perfect father, the perfect husband, the perfect American. And all they do is trash the guy.”
We’ll just ignore that  Barack  wrote in his OWN book that he did weed and snorted cocaine and hung pout with radical marxists. 🙂

Now that’s “Journalism” for you…

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Now this is Marketing: https://www.mittromney.com/donate/built-it-shirt

Thomas Sowell: Barack Obama’s great rhetorical gifts include the ability to make the absurd sound not only plausible, but inspiring and profound.

His latest verbal triumph was to say on July 13th, “if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.” As an example, “Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Let’s stop and think, even though the whole purpose of much political rhetoric is to keep us from thinking, and stir our emotions instead.

Even if we were to assume, just for the sake of argument, that 90 percent of what a successful person has achieved was due to the government, what follows from that? That politicians will make better decisions than individual citizens, that politicians will spend the wealth of the country better than those who created it? That doesn’t follow logically — and certainly not empirically.

Does anyone doubt that most people owe a lot to the parents who raised them? But what follows from that? That they should never become adults who make their own decisions?

The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists — which is to say, to take away our freedom. They do this in stages, starting with some group that others envy or resent — Jews in Nazi Germany, capitalists in the Soviet Union, foreign investors in Third World countries that confiscate their investments and call this theft “nationalization.”

Freedom is seldom destroyed all at once. More often it is eroded, bit by bit, until it is gone. This can happen so gradually that there is no sudden change that would alert people to the danger. By the time everybody realizes what has happened, it can be too late, because their freedom is gone.

All the high-flown talk about how people who are successful in business should “give back” to the community that created the things that facilitated their success is, again, something that sounds plausible to people who do not stop and think through what is being said. After years of dumbed-down education, that apparently includes a lot of people.

Take Obama’s example of the business that benefits from being able to ship their products on roads that the government built. How does that create a need to “give back”?

Did the taxpayers, including business taxpayers, not pay for that road when it was built? Why should they have to pay for it twice?

What about the workers that businesses hire, whose education is usually created in government-financed schools? The government doesn’t have any wealth of its own, except what it takes from taxpayers, whether individuals or businesses. They have already paid for that education. It is not a gift that they have to “give back” by letting politicians take more of their money and freedom.

When businesses hire highly educated people, such as chemists or engineers, competition in the labor market forces them to pay higher salaries for people with longer years of valuable education. That education is not a government gift to the employers. It is paid for while it is being created in schools and universities, and it is paid for in higher salaries when highly educated people are hired.

One of the tricks of professional magicians is to distract the audience’s attention from what they are doing while they are creating an illusion of magic. Pious talk about “giving back” distracts our attention from the cold fact that politicians are taking away more and more of our money and our freedom.

Even the envy that politicians stir up against “the rich” is highly focused on those particular high income-earners whose decisions the politicians want to take over. Others in sports or entertainment can make far more money than the highest paid corporate executive, but there is no way that politicians can take over the roles of Roger Federer or Oprah Winfrey, so highly paid sports stars or entertainers are never accused of “greed.”

If we are so easily distracted by self-serving political rhetoric, we are not only going to see our money, but our freedom, increasingly taken away from us by slick-talking politicians, including our current slick-talker-in-chief in the White House.

Cal Thomas: As the Obama campaign attacks Mitt Romney’s business success — and by association all who have succeeded or wish to succeed — Romney should turn the tables and attack seven principles that have made government highly ineffective.

They are:

1. High taxes. High taxes rob the productive and discourage innovation.

2. Too many regulations. Over-regulation inhibits private industry from performing up to its potential.

3. Overspending. When an individual is in debt, he or she aims to spend less until the family budget is in balance. When government spends more than it takes in, it creates an addiction and burdens current and future citizens. Politicians won’t tell anyone “no,” so government keeps spending.

4. Foreign adventures. We cannot afford to go everywhere in hopes of promoting liberty. We should only send troops where our interests are clearly defined and an achievable outcome is likely. Countries receiving military assistance must help pay the bill.

5. Bureaucracy. There are too many people working for government. Many agencies and programs are unnecessary.

6. Health care. Government can’t make you healthy. Obamacare will not only cost more, but will reduce the quality and availability of good health care, as in the UK. A private-sector solution is preferable.

7. Ignoring the Constitution. The best habit the American government could practice is a return to the principles of that great document that set boundaries for government and removed them for its citizens.

Inspiration and perspiration are habits that usually lead to success. Government’s bad habits produce unending debt and stifle private-sector job creation. That’s the counterargument to these bad habits.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

“The most effective way that the Congress could help to support the economy right now,” he said, “would be to work to address the nation’s fiscal challenges in a way that takes into account both the need for long-run sustainability and the fragility of the recovery.”–Fed Chairman Ben Bernacke

Fedspeak translation: Don’t sit there, do something.

Congress has boosted spending from its long-term average of about 20% of GDP to close to 25%, while racking up $5 trillion in debt in just three years.

Instead of cutting spending, rolling back regulations and slashing taxes — historically, the only way out of a recession — Democrats are pushing forward with tax hikes that Ernst & Young estimates will cost 710,000 jobs, slash $200 billion from GDP, lower wages by 1.8% and cause business investment to plunge.

Sen. Patty Murray (D): “If Republicans won’t work with us on a balanced approach, we are not going to get a deal,” said Murray. “Because I feel very strongly that we simply cannot allow middle-class families and the most vulnerable Americans to bear this burden alone.”

“So if we can’t get a good deal, a balanced deal that calls on the wealthy to pay their fair share (aka raise taxes), then I will absolutely continue this debate into 2013 rather than lock in a long-term deal this year that throws middle-class families under the bus,” (screw everyone unless I get my way) she said. “And I think my party, and the American people, will support that.”

Do it our way or else! That’s BY-Partisanship Democrat style.:)

Shall I repeat myself (not that a Liberal is capable of listening mind you, they aren’t):

The Top 1%  pays nearly 40% of all the Income Taxes.

50% Pay No income Taxes AT ALL.

But the “rich” aren’t paying their fair share according to the Democrats.

Facts never get in the way of a good old fashioned class hate.

“If middle-class families start seeing more money coming out of their paychecks next year — are Republicans really going to stand up and fight for new tax cuts for the rich?”— Sen. Murray

Then there’s our favourite crazed attack dog, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on  the “you didn’t build it” government did:

Radio Host: “Is there a fundamental difference here, where the President believes that all positive things flow from the federal government whereas Mitt Romney and many people believe that good things flow from the private sector and that they should not be demonized and demagogued for creating jobs?”

President Obama was talking about yesterday and Romney and the Republicans well-know it, was that we all need to pull together. We all need to be working together. [No] one person, no one business owner is able to do it all by themselves. We’re all in this together and that’s the approach President Obama takes to governing, so to suggest that he said anything other than that is a distraction.

you know, they obviously have pulled themselves up by their boot straps, have put their own blood, sweat and tears into making that business successful, but that nobody’s success can be credited just to themselves.

Barf Bag, please…

NOVEMBER IS COMING

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

A View to Kill

So how’s that “Hope and Change” working for you?

Can Harry Reid wait out the Tea Party?

The Senate majority leader seems to think so.

Reid blamed everything that ails Washington and the nation on Republicans. He slammed the GOP for its refusal to go along with tax increases as part of this month’s debt-ceiling deal, saying hard-core fiscal conservatives are making it impossible to strike a long-term deal that slows the growth of the national debt.

“(Senate Minority Leader) Mitch McConnell has done a good job bringing the country to a standstill,” Reid said.

The reason Republicans have drawn such a deep line in the sand on tax increases, of course, is the Tea Party movement. The populist uprising that was born from Washington’s bailouts achieved critical mass after Democrats decided to start spending like no government before. The stimulus. The ObamaCare overreach. Budget deficits that made President George W. Bush look like a piker.

Democrats were tossed from office in record numbers last November. That groundswell is shaping the 2012 campaign.

But Reid doesn’t expect it to last.

“The Tea Party was the result of a terrible economy,” he said. “I’ve said that many times, and I believe that.”

“That (the Tea Party) will pass. They will lose a number of seats next year.”

Reid has amassed his considerable power by never underestimating his adversaries. And he has been known to throw out strategic fibs to create misdirection.

However, Reid left the indelible impression Friday that as long as he’s leading the Senate Democrats, the Tea Party agenda is dead on arrival in his chamber.

But don’t worry, it’s the Republicans fault for not “compromising”. 🙂

In exchange for a modicum of reduced growth in federal spending, Reid said someone will have to pay more. There will be no reductions and entitlement reforms without tax increases.

But don’t worry, it’s the Republicans fault for not “compromising”. 🙂

He singled out the rich and oil companies as especially deserving of punishment.

But he’s not engaged in class warfare. 🙂

But budget deficits under Bush were in the $100 billion to $400 billion range, mostly related to the post 9/11 wars. The Obama administration — working with a Democratic House and Senate its first two years — set the course for budget deficits of more than $1 trillion into the distant future. Obama is on course to pile up more debt in three years than Bush did in eight.

But that’s Bush’s fault also, you know…

Echoing the sentiment of other Democrats and devoted Keynesians, Reid said the failed stimulus just wasn’t big enough. “I had $100 billion in infrastructure development in the bill, but I needed three Republican votes. Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins made me get rid of it.”

When in debt, spend even more (“Infrastructure”= Spending), and those damn Republicans screwed that up too! :0

Obama’s poll rating is the lowest yet, so it’s time to go on a campaign trip and say lots of flowery “centrist” things he doesn’t mean and try fake out people again.

And having the biggest campaign warchest in history and a complicit Liberal media to slag your opponents into a radioactive mess doesn’t hurt either.

After all, “Vote for Me , the other guy is an EXTREMIST! Asshole!”

Asked how Iowans view President Barack Obama, Michael Gartner, the President of NBC News from 1988 to 1993, insisted on this weekend’s Bloomberg TV’s Political Capital: “I think people have a fondness for him and I don’t think people blame him for anything that’s wrong in this country,” except, that is, “the far-right of the Republican Party.”

No media bias there.

“I think there’s a lot of time on radio and television and on the Web that actually is conservative points of view. There’s not a lot of time for the left,” long-time CNN executive David Bohrman, the new President of Current TV, the channel co-founded by Al Gore which is Keith Olbermann’s new home, laughably claimed late Sunday morning in a live interview on CNN’s Reliable Sources.“I also think that the left needs to recapture patriotism and not let the right own the flag and own patriotism” and even saw MSNBC’s prime time as too balanced.

NBC’anchor Brian Williams,“By all accounts the big meeting with his fellow Republicans is tense. In no uncertain terms the Speaker tells hardline conservatives, who are in no mood to compromise, to get in line behind his bill.”

Notice the labels. Somehow, Williams never spent a second on his Obama special asking the President how he was going to handle the demands of “hardline liberals” – or any kind of liberal, for that matter. The only hardliners are conservatives who want to stop the spending madness. What this country desperately needs are more “hardline conservatives” to dismay network anchormen. (Brent Bozell)

Remember, the only hardline, uncompromising people are the Tea Party and Conservative Republicans. 🙂

The “unbiased” Media says so it must be true. 🙂

Williams to Pelosi: “A liberal member said to me his fear is the poor are gonna get hurt and the rich are gonna get by without harm in this. Is that your fear?”

Pelosi preposterously proclaimed she had the entire country at heart, while the GOP only cared about the super rich: “My concern is for the great middle class and we want to have a resolution of this that is for 100 percent of the American people. Republicans want to have a resolution that is for the two percent.” (Bozell)

No bias here. 🙂
But just remember the Democrat mantra, “Vote for me, the other guy is an extremist asshole!”

Fell that “hope and change” Yes you can! 🙂

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


Tough

Couldn’t have said it better.

Jedidiah Bila: I spend quite a bit of time calling out some on the left. I detest big-government policies that simultaneously snatch our liberty and rob us blind. I find class warfare to be profoundly un-American. I have no patience for leftists who demand civility while spewing hateful rhetoric, or those who insist that feminism, diversity, and compassion are enemies of conservatism. And I don’t like left-wing liars who utilize scare tactics to distort everything from Paul Ryan’s Medicare proposal to Jan Brewer’s effort to enforce an immigration law that the federal government should be enforcing already.

I’ve also had tough words for some in the GOP. I have rejected weak deals that do nothing in the way of seriously addressing this country’s deficit and debt. And I have repeatedly stood firm against business-as-usual Republicans who compromise even when it’s not in the best interest of the country.

I now see two trends developing on the right with respect to 2012 that I’d like to address.

First off, I’ve received many emails from Republicans who feel that GOP contenders shouldn’t boldly criticize each other and that conservatives shouldn’t strongly critique 2012 candidates. I beg to differ.

When it comes to a 2012 primary season, it is imperative that candidates hold each other accountable for their records, for any disparity between their actions and words, for promises made and not kept, and for any and all inconsistencies. I want grassroots conservative bloggers, columnists, television commentators, and talk radio hosts calling it like they see it, putting those records front and center, and having a zero-tolerance policy for phonies and do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do nonsense. That is the only way to try to ensure that the strongest, most capable, most genuinely conservative candidate rises to the top. I want candidates challenging the heck out of each other. And I want us challenging them, too.

Secondly, I’ve had about enough of folks on the right trying to discourage candidates from running by insisting right off the bat that they could never win. Candidates are labeled unelectable, unpresidential, too polarizing, not polished enough, too unconventional, or some other absurd description. And so I ask — what are you folks so afraid of? Why are you so terrified of Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and others entering the race and showing voters what they’ve got? Whether or not they are able to adeptly articulate their message and/or possess a proven commitment to conservatism will be heard by voters. The American people will make their decision. And I have to question the motives of anyone who wants to silence a candidate before the battle has even begun.

Conservatives, 2012 isn’t a fight we can afford to lose. And it’s not just about defeating Barack Obama. It’s about supporting someone who can be trusted to get this country back on track. You and I both know that plenty of politicians with GOP labels stamped on their foreheads are in no way committed to principled conservatism, and can in no way be counted on to exhibit strong leadership when it comes to fiscal responsibility, entitlement reform, and reawakening the values that built this country. By challenging candidates — and by them challenging each other — American voters will begin to separate the men from the boys, the women from the girls.

And to those who love telling potential GOP candidates to sit down and shut up before they’ve even stepped up to the plate, I remind you that this is America. That’s not what we’re about. I, for one, am ready to hear from everyone gutsy enough to play.

AMEN!

The Left and the Leftist Media are going to hate you no matter what you do or what you say. Period.

You could farther left than Barack Obama (if that’s possible) and they’d still hate you. And so would anyone who would have voted for you.

So have some balls. Stir straight into the Hurricane of Hate.

Case in Point: McDonalds.

Under assault for year by the Food Police.

They attack them, they change their ways. They attack them for something else. They change. They attack them again and again and again.

It’s much like Israel to Hamas and The Palestinians, their very existence pisses them off!

Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, we can turn our attention to another remorseless enemy who for years has sown death and destruction among blameless innocents. I refer, of course, to Ronald McDonald.

The McDonald’s mascot may qualify as one of the more annoying characters on the planet. But to his credit, he doesn’t compound his unappealing personality by bossing you around. In that respect, he is far less objectionable than the people who make a fetish of finding him objectionable.

Last week, they took out ads in several newspapers blaming the clown for childhood obesity and demanding that McDonald’s “stop marketing junk food to kids.” The signers range from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an anti-meat group that the American Medical Association has accused of “perverting medical science,” to alternative-healing huckster Andrew Weil.

The general rule of critics is that McDonald’s can do nothing right. Some years ago, they insisted that the company get rid of the beef tallow in which it cooked French fries. It did so, in favor of a supposedly healthier oil containing trans fats. A few years later, the activists demanded that it abandon trans fats, which it soon did.

How much credit did it get for those changes? Not much. The class of people who detested McDonald’s went right on detesting it.

These ads are part of a larger campaign against everything McDonald’s represents. Were the company to retire Ronald McDonald, its enemies would step up their calls for an end to Happy Meals. Get rid of Happy Meals, and they would demand that McDonald’s thoroughly revamp its menu to incorporate their superior notions of nutrition.

Ultimately, the only way to please the critics is to become something unrecognizable. Or, better yet, disappear from the planet. New York Times food columnist Mark Bittman, who is to sanctimony what Saudi Arabia is to oil, believes “anything that discourages people from eating at McDonald’s could be seen as wonderful.”

Wonderful, that is, to enlightened souls who avoid it at all costs. But it’s clear that McDonald’s comes much closer to what paying consumers actually want than what its detractors prefer. It has 32,000 restaurants, serving 64 million people a day. Last year, it had revenues of $24 billion, more than the gross domestic product of some countries.

The food moralists imagine that McDonald’s marketing magic renders its targets helpless to resist. Ronald McDonald might as well be rounding up kids at gunpoint and forcing them to choke down

But children young enough to be seduced by Ronald McDonald or Happy Meals rarely visit restaurants without parents. These adults are free agents experienced at saying “no” to protect the interests of their sometimes ungrateful offspring.

Parents who dislike McDonald’s sales tactics have a wealth of dining alternatives. And anyone who wants a low-fat, low-calorie meal can easily find it underneath the Golden Arches: Health magazine ranks McDonald’s among the 10 healthiest fast-food restaurants.

It may be argued that many parents are too weak or ignorant to make sound decisions about the food their kids eat. If so, McDonald’s and its unstoppable brainwashing machine could vanish tomorrow without making the slightest difference in obesity or other diet-related ailments.

People don’t like cheap, tasty, high-calorie fare because McDonald’s offers it. McDonald’s offers it because people like it. In McDonald’s absence, patrons would seek it out at other fast-food places, sit-down establishments or grocery stores.

We live in an age of inexpensive, abundant food carefully designed to please the mass palate. Most of us, recalling the scarcity, dietary monotony and starvation that afflicted our ancestors for hundreds of millennia, count that as progress. But those determined to save human beings from their own alleged folly see it as catastrophic.

What is apparent is that the militant enemies of fast food would like it treated as a public health menace along the lines of tobacco. They want broad measures to restrict, discourage and punish the companies that sell it.

Ronald McDonald is merely a convenient symbol. Their true target is a capitalist economy that gives companies far too much latitude in appealing to customers and allows government far too little control over our food choices.

The idea of using government power to dictate what we eat will strike many Americans as a gross intrusion on personal freedom. But McDonald’s enemies? They’re lovin’ it. (Steve Chapman-Chicago Tribune)

Add in Liberal obsession with Oil Companies and you see where this is headed.

Liberals just want to control everything and everybody. They just consider themselves why smarter than you so you must be herded like cattle to do and to think what they want you to think.

So to have GOP Presidential Candidates cow-towing to the Media and the Left, trying to be “reasonable” and “accommodating” and “compromising” just drives me bat-crazy.

Stand Up. Be a Man (or woman) and Say what you believe and don’t Equivocate just to placate the Leftists. They won’t be.

Pure and Simple.

Now Just Do it!

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel