From Russia with Weak Knees

He’s KGB. Old school.

 

He’s a Community Organizer who wants to slash the military and make everything “fair”.

In a cage match who’s going to get mauled? 🙂

President Barack Obama is warning Russia “there will be costs” for any military maneuvers it launches in Ukraine, a move U.S. and Ukrainian officials say they believe to be already underway.

What’s he going to do, wag his finger at them?

or as The 7th Doctor put in regards to defeating The Daleks, “I mean, what do you expect to do, talk to them sternly?”

Obama is so far out of his league and Putin has known this since day one.

Krauthammer thinks Obama’s statement is about “three levels removed” from actual action. He explained: Obama said “we will stand with the international community — meaning we are going to negotiate with a dozen other countries who will water down the statement — in affirming that there will be costs — meaning in making a statement not even imposing a cost, but in making a statement about imposing a cost — for any military intervention.”

Putin translation in to Russia: “Go For it!, we aren’t going to do anything!”

The Lighthouse on The Hill is officially shut down.

And we’re going to make massive cuts to the military and massive increases in Entitlements instead, because that’s what benefits ME.

And after all, it’s always been about ME.

And I’m  The MOST Arrogant Man in the World…

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Don’t step over the line and re-militarize the Rhineland. Absorbing Austria would cross a red line. Breaking up Czechoslovakia is unacceptable. Get out of Poland by the announced deadline. The rest was history.

Don’t dare blow up another U.S. military barracks overseas. Don’t ever consider another attack on the World Trade Center. Don’t try blowing up one more American Embassy in East Africa. Don’t ever put a hole in a U.S. warship again. The rest was history.

President Obama issued yet another one of those sorts of warnings to stop the violence to Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych just before protestors drove him out of office. “There will be consequences if people step over the line,” Obama threatened.

Obama Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes amplified that veiled warning. He called the Ukrainian government repression “completely outrageous” — as opposed to just outrageous or completely, completely outrageous.

Secretary of State John Kerry joined the chorus of condemnation by hinting at economic sanctions if Yanukovych didn’t stop his violent crackdown on protestors. Why does this rhetorical assault sound familiar?

Over the past five years, Obama has issued serial deadlines to Iran to cease and desist from its ongoing enrichment of uranium. All the while, more Iranian centrifuges went online.

Later, Obama turned from deadlines to red lines. He threatened Syrian President Bashar Assad with one about using chemical weapons. “A red line for us,” the president warned, “is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”

Assad moved over that red line, using chemical weapons to gas his own people, and is now winning the war against the insurgents. In the end, an embarrassed Obama was reduced to denying that he had never issued a red line in the first place: “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.”

The administration’s latest cry of “outrageous” does not seem so absolute either. Remember, the president himself used that exact adjective to condemn the IRS scandal when it was revealed that the tax agency was inordinately focusing on conservative groups.

Later, after various key IRS officials invoked the Fifth Amendment, resigned or abruptly retired, Obama brushed off the scandal. It was, he said, mostly a media event conjured up by “outraged” journalists. Somehow, a scandal that the president once decried as institutional abuse ended up as a media melodrama perpetrated by unduly outraged reporters.

Will the Ukrainian mess now abate due to Kerry’s hints at sanctions?

Given Kerry’s loud global-warming sermonizing and the administration’s serial threats, bad actors abroad probably believe that burning too much coal is likelier to anger the U.S. than shooting protestors or gassing enemies.

After the Obama administration finally assembled a coalition of allies to impose tough sanctions against Iran, and after the trade embargoes began to bite the theocracy, Obama, without warning his coalition, abruptly relaxed those embargoes and entered into talks with the Iranians.

The message? Imposing sanctions is a difficult business. When they finally work, they are likely to be abruptly lifted if the squeezed nation sends out a few peace feelers and wants to feign appearing reasonable.

The U.S. has now shot so many rhetorical arrows that its quiver of indignation is empty — and the world’s troublemakers may know it.

An administration that ignores almost all of its own ObamaCare deadlines surely cannot expect others to abide by any timetables it sets abroad.

There may be no viable solutions to the violence in Syria or Ukraine. The messes in Egypt and Libya, the Chinese provocations to their neighbors, the North Korean lunacy and the spiraling violence in Venezuela certainly have no easy answers. But not knowing quite what to do is not the same as knowing certainly what not to do.

Although the U.S. alone seems to honor its promised deadlines for Afghanistan and Iraq withdrawals, the world’s aggressors sense the Obama bluster is predictably to be followed by more. Therefore, they have decided to risk aggrandizements while they can.

For Vladimir Putin, today it’s Ukraine, tomorrow the Baltics or Eastern Europe. For Iran’s theocrats, if chemical weapons are OK in Syria, why not nuclear WMD in Iran? For China, when Japan yields, why shouldn’t Taiwan, South Korea or the Philippines?

Such a seemingly insignificant loss of deterrence is how wars often start — when an aggressive nation bets that loud words signal that consequences will never follow. So it is emboldened to up the ante to try something even riskier. America’s step-over line/deadline/red line outrage is long past monotonous and empty — and the result has been an ever scarier world. (Victor Davis Hansen)

But at least he’s the King of his own sand pile and they have made his subjects more dependent on him. Who really gives a crap about anyone else.

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

The News of The Day

Everyone knows the phrase “government shutdown” doesn’t mean the entire U.S. government is shut down. So in a partial government shutdown, like the one underway at the moment, how much of the government is actually shut down, and how much is not?

One way to measure that is in how much money the government spends. In a conversation Thursday, a Republican member of Congress mentioned that the military pay act, passed by Congress and signed by President Obama at the beginning of the shutdown, is actually a huge percentage of the government’s discretionary spending in any given year. And that is still flowing. So if you took that money, and added it to all the entitlement spending that is unaffected by a shutdown, plus all the areas of spending that are exempted from a shutdown, and added it all together, how much of the federal government’s total spending is still underway even though the government is technically shut down?

I asked a Republican source on the Senate Budget Committee for an estimate. This was the answer: “Based on estimates drawn from CBO and OMB data, 83 percent of government operations will continue. This figure assumes that the government pays amounts due on appropriations obligated before the shutdown ($512 billion), spends $225 billion on exempted military and civilian personnel, pays entitlement benefits for those found eligible before the shutdown (about $2 trillion), and pays interest costs when due ($237 billion). This is about 83 percent of projected 2014 spending of $3.6 trillion.” (Byron York)

But one has to remember that the Sequester (a 2% cut in an increase) was the Apocalypse and all manner of Hell was released on Earth over it to the Left.

So 17% of their man source of power… 🙂

Sir Bob Geldof: The musician-turned-activist reckons the world will end in 2030 – leading to the extinction of humankind. Sir Bob, 61, based his miserable prediction on the effects of climate change.

But he’s hysterically over-the-top like most Leftists. 🙂

NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE!

On domestic issues, Obama said he would be willing to negotiate with Republicans on health care, deficit reduction and spending – but only if House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, holds votes to reopen the government and increase the nation’s borrowing limit.

In other words, give me everything I want, then we can shiv you in the back again, Sucker! 🙂

After all, the NEXT crisis, an old friend is coming to town on Oct 17th, the Debt Limit.

Where, when you’re in debt, you spend even more so you don’t have to face being in debt until the next time.

“I recognize that in today’s media age, being controversial, taking controversial positions, rallying the most extreme parts of your base, whether it’s left or right, is a lot of times the fastest way to get attention and raise money,” he said. “But it’s not good for government.”

But it’s good for them. Which is why Biden is sending out funding solicitations to hard core Democrat supporters and the Liberal media is making an Apocalypse out of a 17% mole hill. 🙂

[C]onsider the recent Syria debacle. Initially, the president declared a “red line” if President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons in that nation’s civil war. But when the Syrian leader was shown to have done so, Obama failed to act, and declared, “I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line. My credibility is not on the line.” The president shouldn’t have been surprised when 54% of Americans said they believed he was “ducking responsibility for his earlier statement.”

There is plenty of time for the president to take responsibility and rectify his perceived leadership deficit. It is true that he does not have a rubber stamp; the House of Representatives is certainly opposed to many of his initiatives. But that makes leadership at the top all the more important. Great leaders negotiate and own the consequences.  (Arthur Brooks)

But we don’t have a great leader. We have a petty, vindictive Community Organizer.

Thomas Sowell:

Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.

Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.

None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out — and articulation has never been their strong suit — the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.

AMEN!

memorial

Don Que Little

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

OMG! The Sky is not Falling!

The president said unless a company is directly related to the Defense Department or is located in a town with a military installation, “It’s conceivable that in the first week, the first two weeks, the first three weeks, the first month … a lot of people may not notice the full impact of the sequester.

So the End of the World is not Nigh.

The so-called “sequester” cuts are due to begin taking effect Friday and would cut $85 billion in federal spending by the end of September.

$85 Billion being what he overspends in 17 days…And a Total of 1.2 Trillion over 10 years. This President overspends this much in just One Year!!! 😦

Negotiations have bogged down over Mr. Obama’s insistence on raising another $580 billion in tax revenue.

Aka Tax Increases. He Wants More Money to Spend!
So is every “deal” with this President going to be with Tax Increases? 🙂
Yes, because the meme being set up here is that cutting Government Spending on any level at any time is a bad, mean, evil thing to do!!
“First of all, the sequester is not something that I proposed. It’s something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen … “- In the Debates

“The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.”

— President Obama, in the third presidential debate, Oct. 22, 2012

Naturally, of course, he’s being dishonest as usual.
If the sequester does happen, expect video of Obama’s declaration to be put into heavy rotation by his Republican critics (I HOPE)
But not the The Ministry of Truth, especially now that Former White House Propaganda Mouthpiece Robert Gibbs is now working for NBC News.
They will play it up as the Republican’s Fault.
AS ALWAYS.
Never let it be said that President Obama has failed to spend time with Republican leaders in seeking an alternative to automatic budget cuts that are due to hit most federal departments Friday. On Wednesday, for example, the president gave GOP lawmakers as much as seven minutes, a rare face-to-face encounter that the White House described as a “meeting.”

“It is a sincere conviction among Republicans that the president’s negotiating posture isn’t about getting a deal done, it’s a zero-sum political game where his aim is to destroy the Republican [House] majority in the next election,” said Steve Schmidt, a Republican strategist

DUH!  That’s why he’s still Campaign Mode!

“I’m not interested in playing a blame game,”  (But it’s the Republican’s Fault!) Mr. Obama told shipyard workers in Newport News, Va., on Tuesday. “All I’m interested in is just solving problems. (But if I can’t do that I can blame someone else for it!) I want us to be able to look back five years from now, 10 years from now, and say we took care of our business and we put an end to some of these games that maybe, I guess, are entertaining for some but are hurting too many people.” (aka I’ve destroyed the Republican Party so there is no opposition to me and the Democrats taking care of whatever business WE want without opposition from anyone- aka a not so benign dictatorship!).

Said Republican strategist Whit Ayres, “The president is really good at campaigning and really bad at governing. So he’s doing what he’s good at.”

And Moving to try and exploit any Crisis, real or manufactured, is all he knows how to do.
Bob Woodward, The original “gotcha” journalist that all Liberal Gotcha Journalists and Crusaders against the Right Wing fawn all over. He the God who slayed Richard Nixon and created generations of “crusaders” for Ministry of Truth, Social Justice, and The Liberal Way or the Highway:
Bob Woodward’s “The Price of Politics.” The book clearly had the full cooperation of top White House and congressional officials. With the help of our colleague, we took a tour through the relevant sections in order to determine the accuracy of the president’s statement.The Facts

 The battle over raising the debt ceiling consumed Washington in the summer of 2011, with Republicans refusing to agree to raise it unless spending was cut by an equivalent amount. Obama pressed but failed to get an agreement on raising revenue as part of the package. Woodward’s book details the efforts to come up with an enforcement mechanism that would make sure the cuts took place — and virtually every mention shows this was a White House gambit.

Page 215 (July 12, 2011):

They turned to [White House national economic council director Gene] Sperling for details about a compulsory trigger if they didn’t cut spending or raise taxes in an amount at least equivalent to the debt ceiling increase.

“A trigger would lock in our commitment,” Sperling explained. “Even though we disagree on the composition of how to get to the cuts, it would lock us in. The form of the automatic sequester would punish both sides. We’d have to September to avert any sequester” — a legal obligation to make spending cuts.

“Then we could use a medium or big deal to force tax reform,” Obama said optimistically.

“If this is a trigger for tax reform,” [House speaker John] Boehner said, “this could be worth discussing. But as a budget tool, it’s too complicated. I’m very nervous about this.”

“This would be an enforcement mechanism,” Obama said.

 Short version: The White House proposed the idea of a compulsory trigger, with Sperling calling it an “automatic sequester,” though initially it was to include tax revenue, not just spending cuts. Boehner was “nervous” about using it as a budget tool.

Page 326 (July 26):

At 2:30 p.m., [White House Budget director Jack] Lew and [White House legislative affairs director Rob] Nabors went to the Senate to meet with [Senator Majority Leader Harry] Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone.

“We have an idea for a trigger,” Lew said.

“What’s the idea,” Reid asked skeptically.

“Sequestration.”

Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he was going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. “A couple of weeks ago,” he said, “my staff said to me that there is one more possible” enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, “Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?”

Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained.

What would the impact be?

They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department….The idea was to make all of the threatened cuts so unthinkable and onerous that the supercommittee [tasked with making additional cuts] would do its work and come up with its own deficit reduction plan.

Lew and Nabors went through a laundry list of programs that would face cuts.

“This is ridiculous,” Reid said.

That’s the beauty of a sequester, they said, it’s so ridiculous that no one ever wants it to happen. It was the bomb that no one wanted to drop. It actually would be an action-forcing event.

“I get it,” Reid said finally.

 Short version: Once tax increases were off the table, the White House staff came up with a sequestration plan that only had spending cuts and sold Harry Reid on the idea.

Page 339:

 Lew, Nabors, Sperling and Bruce Reed, Biden’s chief of staff, had finally decided to propose using language from the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law as the model for the trigger. It seems tough enough to apply to the current situation. It would require a sequester with half the cuts from Defense, and the other half from domestic programs. There would be no chance the Republicans would want to pull the trigger and allow the sequester to force massive cuts to Defense.

 Short version: This is the third reference to the White House putting together the plan for sequester. Granted, they are using language from a congressional law from a quarter-century earlier, but that seems a thin reed on which to say this came from Congress. In fact, Lew had been a policy advisor to then House Speaker Tip O’Neill from 1979 to 1987, and so was familiar with the law.

Page 344 (July 30):

 The president and [White House chief of staff William] Daley were on the patio outside Daley’s office with [adviser David] Plouffe, [Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner, Lew and Sperling when they got word that Biden was making progress with [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell. It looked as if Republicans were ready to agree to a Defense/non-Defense sequester in the trigger.

Plouffe couldn’t believe it. These guys were so afraid of increasing revenues that they’re willing to put Defense on the chopping block? Republicans’ revenue phobia was so intense that they would sell out the Pentagon.

“This is a deal we can probably live with,” Obama said, willing to do almost anything to salvage something and prevent catastrophe.

 Short version: Republicans agreed to the White House proposal for a sequester.

Page 346 (July 30):

 At 9 p.m. on Saturday night, Boehner’s staff got their first real look at the proposal negotiated by Biden and McConnell.

[Boehner policy director Brett] Loper had been in regular contact with [McConnell deputy chief of staff] Rohit Kumar about the progress of the negotiations, but now he had paper, so he drafted the Republican staff from the House Budget Committee and they pulled an all-nighter trying to understand the plan and to identify its shortcomings.

It was a challenge, because nobody in the office had operated under the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings rules, which dated back to the 1980s. Loper spent the night trying to get his arms around the proposal.

 Short version: Republicans had to work through the night to understand the White House proposal.

 We asked the White House if officials disputed any part of Woodward’s narrative and did not get a response. Spokeswoman Amy Brundage issued the following statement:

 “The only reason that a sequester is in place is because both sides in Congress — Democrats and Republicans — voted for it in the Budget Control Act to force Congress to act. In fact, 2 out of 3 Republicans in Congress — including Congressman Ryan — voted for it and many praised it at the time. The President was making the point that the sequester was never intended to be policy, and that Congress must act to replace it with balanced deficit reduction. They can and should do that.

 “In addition, the notion that we wanted the sequester is false. The fact of the matter is that we wanted a trigger that included balance and specifically asked more from the wealthiest individuals on the revenue side. Congressional Republicans refused.”

The Pinocchio Test

 No one disputes the fact that no one wanted sequestration, or that ultimately a bipartisan vote in Congress led to passage of the Budget Control Act. But the president categorically said that sequestration was “something that Congress has proposed.”

 Woodward’s detailed account of meetings during the crisis, clearly based on interviews with key participants and contemporaneous notes, make it clear that sequestration was a proposal advanced and promoted by the White House.

In sum: Gene Sperling brought up the idea of a sequester, while Jack Lew sold Harry Reid on the idea and then decided to use the Gramm-Hollings-Rudman language (which he knew from his days of working for Tip O’Neill) as a template for sequester. The proposal was so unusual for Republicans that staffers had to work through the night to understand it.

 Oddly, Lew in Tampa on Thursday, publicly asserted the opposite: “There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger…. [It] was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure at the end.”

 This prompted Woodward to go over his notes and interviews once again, to make sure he had gotten it right.

 “After reviewing all the interviews and the extensive material I have on this issue, it looks like President Obama told a whopper,” Woodward said.  “Based on what Jack Lew said in Florida today, I have asked the White House to correct the record.”

THEN…

On Tuesday, Obama appeared at the White House with a group of police officers and firefighters to denounce the sequester as a “meat-cleaver approach” that would jeopardize military readiness and investments in education, energy and readiness. He also said it would cost jobs. But, the president said, the substitute would have to include new revenue through tax reform.

At noon that same day, White House press secretary Jay Carney shifted position and accepted sequester paternity.

“The sequester was something that was discussed,” Carney said. Walking back the earlier statements, he added carefully, “and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward.”

This was an acknowledgment that the president and Lew had been wrong.

Why does this matter?

First, months of White House dissembling further eroded any semblance of trust between Obama and congressional Republicans. (The Republicans are by no means blameless and have had their own episodes of denial and bald-faced message management.)

Second, Lew testified during his confirmation hearing that the Republicans would not go along with new revenue in the portion of the deficit-reduction plan that became the sequester. Reinforcing Lew’s point, a senior White House official said Friday, “The sequester was an option we were forced to take because the Republicans would not do tax increases.”

In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.

But I guess, Like Josef Goebbels once said, “Tell a Lie often enough…” especially 24/7/365 on The Ministry of Truth…

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

How to Cook your own Goose

First off, it does seem a bit silly for me to write me blog today after what happened in Japan.

That is a true human tragedy. And it is still unfolding.

(But no this is not about Charlie Sheen either!!)

But I can’t wait for the whacko environmentalist to start exploiting it for their own agenda.

Much like the NFL.

I was talking to a friend last weekend about why sports means basically nothing to me. I used to be a big sports fan, in my youth.

I happily attended every Michigan home football game for 12 years until I went off to college (just not there).

I went to the Tiger games. Even a few Lions games.

My last hurrah seems to have been the 1980 Olympics, the “Miracle on Ice”.

Shortly after that it was all Unions, strikes and a total greed fest.

And that’s the way I regard sports today.

A bunch of Millionaires arguing about how you split up the Millions and who get how many.

It’s the sort of thing Liberals think goes on in general society on the right.

According to a USAToday article for the 2009-2010 Season the lowest team median income was $500,000 for the Kansas City Chiefs. (They were 4-12 that year).

Jeff Pash, the league’s lead negotiator, said owners had offered to keep player pay at 2009 levels and raise it by $20 million per club over the next four years. The NFL season would remain at 16 games for the next two years, but then could expand to 18 games. Off season and pre-season workouts would be cut. Retirement and health care benefits would improve and contracts could be guaranteed beyond one year.

Jim Quinn, a lead negotiator for the union, said the owners’ proposal would have rolled back player pay to 2007 levels and amounted to a giveback of up to $8 billion over the course of the proposed 10-year deal. In addition, he said a flat salary cap would be imposed at $130 million, as the league would move away from basing player compensation on the percentage of revenues. (WSJ).

Now interestingly the Player’s Union is likely to de-unionize themselves, voluntarily giving up their holy right to collective bargaining.

Why?

So they can sue the owners pants off and run away with even more Millions! They Hope.

And the Owners would rather run off with the millions themselves.

GREED. Pure unadultered GREED.

But you won’t see the Left going all Wisconsin on The Green Bay Packers.

But I hope the fans do.

Maybe they’ll learn the lesson I apparently learned long before I was ever even political, Unions suck!

Because, you know if the players win in court and run off with the cash, they will reform their Union so they can screw the Owners the next time too.

This is what Unions do.

And that’s why I loathe them.

It’s all about the power and the money.

It’s exactly what the Left thinks the Right does on a daily basis.

The question is, will the players hang together in “solidarity” and will Jesse Jackson show up at Lambeau Field to support the “oppressed” Millionaire players. 🙂

Maybe the SEIU can rush NFL headquarters and set up squatters and chant “Hell no! We won’t go!!”

I bleed green in “solidarity” for them. 😦

But the Left and their insatiable need for cash and class warfare to pay for it never learn.

Ignoring the truism that when you tax something you get less of it, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn on Thursday signed legislation making the Land of Lincoln the latest state to enact what’s dubbed the Amazon Tax. It’s designed to collect state sales taxes from online companies if in-state businesses do business through websites such as Seattle-based Amazon.com.

Called the “Main Street Fairness Act”. Liberals so have an special talent for Orwellian language.

Illinois now joins Hawaii, North Carolina and Rhode Island in getting around this impediment by considering affiliates as the required nexus. Amazon’s in court with New York over a similar law.

According to the Tax Foundation, such taxes do not produce huge revenue streams. “Rhode Island,” it says, “has seen no additional sales tax revenue from its Amazon tax, and because Amazon reacted by discontinuing its affiliate program, Rhode Islanders are earning less income and paying less income tax.”

Illinois has about 9,000 such affiliates, and Rebecca Madigan, director of the Performance Marketing Association, an affiliate trade group, estimates the state will lose 25% to 30% of tax revenues collected from the affiliates themselves as they lose business, cut jobs or move out of Illinois.

“It’s not going to accomplish anything,” said Tom Storm, CEO of FatWallet.com, an Amazon affiliate based in Rockton, Ill. He said he plans to move his company and 54 employees out of the state at once.

CouponCabin.com, an Illinois company that offers printable and local coupons, announced it’s planning a move to neighboring Indiana.

“Many thriving businesses like CouponCabin and other affiliate marketing will be forced to move to other states,” it said. “And most important, this law will not generate the tax revenues Illinois thinks it will collect.”

Most new taxes don’t increase revenues or jobs. When you increase the cost of doing business, you get less business and fewer jobs.

But Liberals get that warm and fuzzy endorphin buzz from their Class Warfare.

And that after all, is what it’s all about, the endorphin high “sticking it to the man!” in “defense” of the “little guy”.

<<barf bag on standby>>

Last year, Texas sent Amazon a bill for $269 million in back sales taxes based simply on Amazon’s having a warehouse there. Last month, Amazon announced it was closing the warehouse, costing 110 tax-paying employees their jobs.

The way to increase tax revenues is to increase the tax base, not tax rates. Of course, one can also spend less, and Illinois is one of those states trapped with a huge budget shortfall and bloated and unfunded state pension liabilities.

As we’ve said, the way out of our federal and state fiscal mess is to spend less time worrying about the distribution of the golden eggs and more time worrying about the health of the goose — or our goose is cooked. (IBD)

Over cooked more like.

This is hilariously on point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbwMPzbzVJM

But it sure makes Liberals and Union thugs “feel good” and they get that endorphin buzz from striking against “the rich” in the name of “the middle class”.

Problem is, the rest of us get par boiled in the process.

P.s. NPR

That bastion of “fairness” and “objectivity”. That fired a Liberal, Juan Williams for daring to say Muslims on planes make him nervous.

“The current Republican Party, particularly the Tea Party, is fanatically involved in people’s personal lives and very fundamental Christian,” said NPR’s Ron Schiller to two undercover reporters. “I wouldn’t even call it Christian; it’s this weird evangelical kind of [movement].”

Not knowing he was being videoed, Schiller continued: “The current Republican Party is not really the Republican Party, it’s been hijacked by this group; that is, not just Islamo-phobic but really xenophobic. I mean, basically, they are, they believe in sort of white, middle-American, gun toting—I mean, it’s scary. They’re seriously racist, racist people.”

Schiller is being heavily criticized for these comments, as is NPR and elite liberal thinking in general. Schiller, NPR Foundation president and vice president for development (until these comments), is the Left’s latest exhibit in smearing the Tea Party movement as bigots, racists, fascists, Hitler-ites, followers of Attila the Hun, Torquemada, Genghis Khan, or whatever other handy demon.

Yet, what’s telling about Schiller’s comments is their lack of factual basis, an even greater sin from a man whose business, and erstwhile employer, is the reporting of facts. His comments are a PR problem for NPR, furthering the perception that NPR is not about unbiased reporting but primarily about opinion—a leftist opinion camouflaged as objective news.

Who was behind the set-up, why the ACORN stinger himself, James O’Keefe.

The NPR head was there to discuss a $5 million dollar donation from a Muslim group and instead got caught on Candid Camera.

And now the Left is whining about it. AGAIN.

ACORN, Planned Parenthood, now NPR.

The Public Sector Unions.

Whine, Whine, Whine.

But mind you, when Liberals manufacture “evidence” and trot it out and it’s exposed as fake they say sure it is, “but what was in it was true” as they said about the Dan Rather memo.

It’s all about the power and the money folks.

That’s all it ever is about.

But if Michael Moore is right, it’s all “our money” anyways. 🙂

Except HIS millions, that is….

‘Nuff Said.

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Follow the Money to Civility

Remember (The Liberals won’t) the stink the Liberals had about Sarah Palin and the “crosshairs” map Remember? The map that was criticized as an incitement to violence.

CNN even apologized on air:

CNN’s John King: “Before we go to break, I want to make a quick point. We were having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race. My friend Andy Shaw used the term ‘in the crosshairs’ in talking about the candidates. We’re trying, we’re trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend, he’s covered politics for a long time, but we’re trying to get away from that kind of language.”

https://i1.wp.com/justpiper.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/walker-crosshairs.png

I wonder if they’ll do the same for Gov. Walker. ROTFL! They won’t even air it or discuss it!

Then there’s the Left’s “Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) is obviously a

Kochsukkker”

That’s you’re “mature”, “adult” Liberal. They are rational and capable of compromise and negotiation.

Right.

We need some “right wing sheep” (as the Left  online usually refers to people who disagree with them) to teach the kindergarten Left some manners and how to be an “adult”.

Good Luck! I think the universe would have to turn purple first!

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Watch a “mature” Communication Worker Union Thug (and if you’ve ever seen “Lie to Me” watch for the hate and contempt flash across his face):

The watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zm_Fl3AszuU

But remember, the rules Liberals want for everyone else doesn’t apply to them.

They just want to control YOU.

Do as they say, not as they do. Period.

“I’m proud to be with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an e-mail that gets you going,’’ Capuano said at the rally. “Every once in a while you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.’’

Massachusetts Rep. Michael Capuano apologized for controversial comments he made during a labor rally on the steps of the State House on Tuesday.

But that’s only a political apology you know. Not a real one.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Left punk’d Gov. Walker like a 5 year old calling someone on the phone to embarrass them ala Bart Simpson.

This is the “adult conversation” you’ll get from the Left.

And the Unions are unhappy that if Walker wins they will no longer be in control of both sides of the “collective bargaining” where they collectively bargain with taxpayers money.

You see, the Unions collect Millions of $$ by force from their members. Then they give it to Democrats to get them elected. Then when the “collective bargaining” comes along the Democrat they got elected by buying them the election sit across from them and “negotiates” a deal with the Union that will be funding their re-election.

Democratic politicians don’t think of themselves as “management.” They don’t respond to union demands for more money by saying, “Are you kidding me?” They say, “Great — get me a raise too!”

Democrats buy the votes of government workers with generous pay packages and benefits — paid for by someone else — and then expect a kickback from the unions in the form of hefty campaign donations, rent-a-mobs and questionable union political activity when they run for re-election. (Ann Coulter)

It’s a vampiric symbiosis. And it’s YOUR Money!

In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party. 😦

The Unions paid for nearly 2/3 of Obama’s record-breaking $750 Million dollar buy off in the 2008 election and it’s estimated that Obama will spend $1 Billion for 2012 and the Union money will be the major reason.

So that’s why Obama is so involved in The Midwest, and bored and uninterested in The Middle East.

It’s all about the money! And the money buys power!!

And power is what Liberals really want.

But what are the contributions that public employee unions make to our states and our citizens? Their incentives are to increase the cost of government and reduce down toward zero the accountability of public employees — both contrary to the interests of taxpaying citizens. (IBD)

But very good for the Union, The Democrats, and The Left in general.

This is the ultimate in parasitic drug addiction to money and the Democrats will fight to very last drop of your blood (kind of like Gadhafi)!!!

That’s why one of the great 20th-century presidents was against unions for public employees who have civil service protections. No, not Ronald Reagan. It was Franklin Roosevelt who said, “Action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.” (IBD)

And FDR we all know was a “right wing sheep”. 🙂

So if you get to elect people who will pork your ass off will let someone else take away that pork?

Sound like Entitlements also?

It should. It’s the same problem in reality.

ObamaCare?

“Is it a violation of the House rule wherein members are not permitted to make disparaging references to the President of the United States?” Rep.Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) asked the chairman.

Bet it never raised an eyebrow when disparaging remarks were made about George Bush. 🙂

“In two previous gentlemen’s [sic] statements on the amendment,” Wasserman Schultz continued. “Both of them referred to the Affordable Care Act, which is the accurate title of the health care reform law, as ‘Obamacare.’ That is a disparaging reference to the President of the United States, it is meant as a disparaging reference to the President of the United States…It is clearly in violation of House rules against that.” (DC)

But “reaganomics”, “torture memo”  “star wars” (derogatory term by the left for Reagan’s SDI), “Me Decade/Decade of Greed”- Used by left-wing anti-Reagan critics to attribute the prosperity of the ’80s to selfishness,”Trickle-down”- Used by the media to give a Marie Antoinette “let ’em eat cake” slant to what free-market economists call “supply-side economics” are Ok because the Left said them.

And the same hysterical childishness will and has ensued every time you challenge the Left.

Talking away the Left favourite toys just makes them cry and whine and throw a tantrum.

Just like a child.

And that’s the  “adult conversation” as the President put it that you get from the Left.

Rejoice.

Next time you hear a Union person talk about the “American Dream” (of which 88% of Americans aren’t in Unions) and how curtailing Union power will kill it just remember… The American Dream is not a handout.

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie