The Empire Impossible

Well, “Chopped” was a rerun last night, as I am sure Obama’s speech was too. So I watched an episode of “Hotel Impossible” I had recorded. It’s a show where a Hospitality Expert goes into a failing hotel to find out why they are failing. It always comes down to bad management.

Just like Obama.

“What I believe unites the people of this nation, regardless of race or region or party (which is why if you disagree with a liberal you’re a racist! a hick or a tea party “obstructionist!” :)), young or old, rich or poor (rich evil, poor good), is the simple, profound belief in opportunity for all (as long as you do as I say without question!)— the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility (Like ObamaCare, Benghazi, CIA,IRS,NSA,etc…It must be an Internet Video’s Fault!), you can get ahead (if you’re one of my cronies),” Obama said last night.

Sounds flowery, but he doesn’t believe a word of it! And everything he’s done undermines or complete contradicts this goal. Everything. But I’m sure he believes it. After all, liberals are nothing if not supremely self-delusional about their superior vision and superior morality.

So back to the episode, in Juneau, Alaska, was instructive because you had a hippy owner who’d been running the hotel for 40 years, badly. But she thought it was “good enough” to keep the hotel going so what’s the problem?

Meanwhile, he competition was eating her for lunch on the business.

But she willing to change, unlike the rigid ideologue we have for a President who will say flowery and lofty things but has no intention of changing his ways.

They brought back in her son who was much more educated than she was to manage it day-to-day and he wanted to do it completely differently.

But the instructive part was the Bar Manager. He was a laid back dude who didn’t care if he was over-pouring the drinks (which is bad for business because its profit going down the drain) or leaving the cash register open and unattended, or free drinks because no one pays or steals. He was only interested in the several hundred locals who came to the bar at night. He “people”.  When confronted about trying to get some of the thousands of tourists in the bar to make more money he flipped out. He said he rather quit than see the bar “sanitized” and the thought of people outside of his little circle coming to his own private little watering hole was akin to the end of the world to him.

Sound like a liberal we know?

Only does things for his own good and the good of “his people”. Doesn’t want to change when things are not working. Will go around the owners wishes because they are not his wishes.

The manager thought the bar was his own private domain and he could do anything he wanted for “his friends” and that change would destroy it.

The Democrats think government is their own private domain. And they have a plethora of cronies and if want to change it, you will destroy “the little people” they supposedly do it for (but don’t actually).

Unfortunately, for America, their is no one to fire Obama or push him to quit so that’s where the story ends.

We’re stuck with him.

God help us all.

President Barack Obama outlined plans Tuesday to make 2014 his year of action — using his executive authorities wherever possible while encouraging Congress to go even further.

Obama took on a more pragmatic tone than in previous State of the Union addresses, acknowledging that getting his agenda past House Republicans was unlikely and therefore he would use his power to do what he can on his own.

So I’m going to do what I’m going to do, screw you. I will just do it by decree and regulations. I am Emperor Obama, I will not be denied!

This bar is run by me, for me, and my friends, and for the betterment of “the town”, screw you!

I will not have it “sanitized” by outsiders. People not of “the Body” (Star Trek reference) or “The Not We” (Doctor Who reference).

“Let’s make this a year of action. That’s what most Americans want — for all of us in this chamber to focus on their lives, their hopes, their aspirations.”

They don’t want Obamacare. They don’t want the NSA spying on them. They want some held accountable for Benghazi. They want lower taxes and less government intrusion in their lives.
I don’t think that’s the action the Emperor meant, do you? Its what the people want, but not what his “people” want. And it’s his “people” that matter.

They own it, after all.  They won (stick tongue out!). They have all the power. 🙂

Remember when they were horrified by Bush’s “unilateral” actions…:)

After all, this is his bar, and unlike in Alaska, the owners (the real citizen people) can only tell him at the election if they want to change managers.

Maybe we need an Anthony Melchiorri to come in and straighten out the owners of this country.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Your Lord and Master

Click to visit the original post

One of the things that gauls me the most about Liberals is their sanctimony.
There absolute conviction that they are the superior moral being and your just a dumb greedy mindless chimp.
A guy on the radio was spewing his sanctimony about “equality” and “fairness” where rich people needed to have their money taken from them because he was more concerned about  the poor and starving and giving them a “fair shot” and an “opportunity”.

Because after all, they have no shot now. And they are incompetent to begin with so government must step in and save the day!
When asked if he was concerned about giving the government the ability to just take a persons money just because they have millions of dollars the sanctimonious liberal just comes back repeated about rich people have different morals and he was concerned with the poor and the starving and refused to answer the question and just want to pontificate about how superior his “morality” was compared to evil non-liberals.
That’s what makes him “feel” good.
All emotion no logic.
All sanctimony.
Paraphrase: “when two babies are born I see one that will work at McDonalds and the other has a trust fund”
The sanctimonious liberal wants to piously pontificate about opportunity for the poor.

The way to do that is take from the rich and give it to the poor but that’s not “redistribution of wealth” because the Liberal puffed himself up and said with due pride “I’m not a socialist I’m just concerned about the poor”.

Yikes! Orwell would be proud of you my son.
That way they have an equal opportunity to work hard and be successful.
Notice anything wrong with that logic??
And then there’s the problem of when does the person who was poor and worked their ass off to make themselves rich cross the line into Evil, rich greed, immoral bastard worthy of having their success stripped from them in the name of the Liberal holy sanctimony??
And what incentive does that give to the person to become rich anyhow?
None.
Hey, if the Liberals are always going to give you everyone’s fish because it’s “fair” and they will “feel” good doing it then why do you need to learn to fish for yourself.

If Master Liberal is always going to promise you that they will deliver the booty why then do you need to “struggle”??

The only struggle you need is to elect Democrats so they can take the money from someone else and give it to you.

From Media Matters- The Propaganda Arm of The Obama Administration (as proven by Fast & Furious): In a report released April 9, researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that food stamps “reduced the poverty rate by nearly 8 percent in 2009.” That year, USDA researchers concluded, food stamps reduced the depth of child poverty by 20.9 percent.

As MSNBC’s Al Sharpton explained, “facts matter” in the debate over anti-poverty programs.

Valerie Jarrett: according to her, unemployment checks — in some round about way — are actually “good for” and “stimulate” the economy. “People Who Receive That Unemployment Check Go Out And Spend It And Help Stimulate The Economy.”

Nancy Pelosi: “It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck,” she said.

Dean Baker: Unemployment Insurance “Stimulates The Economy” By “Put[ting] Money In … [The] Pockets” Of People Who Are “Very Likely To Spend” It. In an August 30, 2011, email to Media Matters, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research

Moody’s Economist Sophia Koropeckyj: They’ve likely depleted their savings, and this is really all the income that they have. And they have kids to feed, they have rent to pay, and there’s a very, very high probability they’re going to spend that entire amount that they get.

<LYNN> NEARY (NPR Host): And where do they spend it? In stores.

KOROPECKYJ: That initial infusion into the economy of the unemployment insurance benefits then reverberates through the economy, flows through the economy in a variety of ways, and so that, you know, $1 of benefits is magnified. [NPR, All Things Considered, 7/11/10]

Then Media Matters goes on to cites the CBO.

But when the CBO came out with ObamaCare was going to cost twice as much and would cause lots of people to lose their own insurance they ignored it.

Funny how that worked out.

The fact that they only give you the scraps and make you “feel” good about and gin up Class Warfare to cover up it’s deficiencies and fakery and keep most of it for THEIR cronies is immaterial because you are told you are entitled to it so when the government hands out its meager portions to you the peasants you are so grateful to your Lord and Master for their protection, wisdom, guidance and love.

If this is starting to sound like a Medieval King-Lord-Royalty-Peasant relationship you are catching my drift.

The Elites and The “grateful” peasants.

Also sounds a bit like Communism.

Funny how that worked out. 🙂

OBAMACARE

Call it President Obama’s Committee for the Re-Election of the President — a political slush fund at the Health and Human Services Department.

Only this isn’t some little fund from shadowy private sources; this is taxpayer money, redirected to help Obama win another term. A massive amount of it, too — $8.3 billion. Yes, that’s billion, with a B.

Here is how it works.

The most oppressive aspects of the ObamaCare law don’t kick in until after the 2012 election, when the president will no longer be answerable to voters. More “flexibility,” he recently explained to the Russians.

But certain voters would surely notice one highly painful part of the law before then — namely, the way it guts the popular Medicare Advantage program.

For years, 12 million seniors have relied on these policies, a more market-oriented alternative to traditional Medicare, without the aggravating gaps in coverage.

But as part of its hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts, the Obama one-size-fits-all plan slashes reimbursement rates for Medicare Advantage starting next year — herding many seniors back into the government-run program.

The cuts were 1/2 of what was supposed to be the offest of the cost of the original price of ObamaCare. Which is now a 1/4 because the costs of ObamaCare have gone up even before this happens.

But funny how it was all set for after the election… 🙂

Under federal “open-enrollment” guidelines, seniors must pick their Medicare coverage program for next year by the end of this year — which means they should be finding out before Election Day.

Nothing is more politically volatile than monkeying with the health insurance of seniors, who aren’t too keen on confusing upheavals in their health care and are the most diligent voters in the land. This could make the Tea Party look like a tea party.

Making matters even more politically dangerous for Obama is that open enrollment begins Oct. 15, less than three weeks before voters go to the polls.

It’s hard to imagine a bigger electoral disaster for a president than seniors in crucial states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio discovering that he’s taken away their beloved Medicare Advantage just weeks before an election.

This political ticking time bomb could become the biggest “October Surprise” in US political history.

But the administration’s devised a way to postpone the pain one more year, getting Obama past his last election; it plans to spend $8 billion to temporarily restore Medicare Advantage funds so that seniors in key markets don’t lose their trusted insurance program in the middle of Obama’s re-election bid.

The money is to come from funds that Health and Human Services is allowed to use for “demonstration projects.” But to make it legal, HHS has to pretend that it’s doing an “experiment” to study the effect of this money on the insurance market.

That is, to “study” what happens when the government doesn’t change anything but merely continues a program that’s been going on for years.

Obama can temporarily prop up Medicare Advantage long enough to get re-elected by exploiting an obscure bit of federal law. Under a 1967 statute, the HHS secretary can spend money without specific approval by Congress on “experiments” directly aimed at “increasing the efficiency and economy of health services.”

Past demonstration projects have studied new medical techniques or strategies aimed at improving care or reducing costs. The point is to find ways to lower the costs of Medicare by allowing medical technocrats to make efficient decisions without interference from vested interests.

Now Obama means to turn it on its head — diverting the money to a blatantly nonexperimental purpose to serve his political needs.

A Government Accounting Office report released this morning shows, quite starkly, that there simply is no experiment being conducted, just money being spent. Understandably, the GAO recommends that HHS cancel the project.

Congress should immediately launch an investigation into this unprecedented misuse of taxpayer money and violation of the public trust, which certainly presses the boundaries of legality and very well may breach them.

If he’s not stopped, Obama will spend $8 billion in taxpayer funds for a scheme to mask the debilitating effects on seniors of his signature piece of legislation just long enough to get himself re-elected.

Now that is some serious audacity. (NY Post)

And AARP’s stake in MediGap, the “alternative” to Medicare Advantage (which was a program that has worked better than most) has nothing to do with their support of ObamaCare.

If you opted for a Medicare Advantage health plan (aka Part C), you cannot also buy a Medigap policy. (from AARP’s Website).

So if you have the government gut your competition silently as part of the cost cutting of “waste,fraud and abuse” so much the better for you.

Which is why AARP is not a seniors advocacy group, it’s an insurance company! and it’s looking out for it’s bottom line, the greedy capitalist bastards! 🙂

And so, if you have a slush fund for “Medicare” costs that technically  don’t exist yet, and it just happens to find it’s way into your pockets because, after all, this election is all about YOU and YOU are so superior to everyone else and you can’t allow the peasant to revolt against their Lord and Masters now can you!- That’s ok.

Liberals are so superior to you peasants in their minds that how “stupid” and “racist” are you to want to get rid of them.

So, for your own good they must lie,cheat and steal the election to preserve the proper and “fair” relationship of the government and it’s people–The Lords and Masters to the peasants.

“The Peasants are Revolting!”

“Yeah, they stink on ice.” — Mel Brooks History of the World Part 1

Monty Python & The Holy Grail

King Arthur: I am your king.
Peasant Woman: Well, I didn’t vote for you.
King Arthur: You don’t vote for kings.
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
[Angelic music plays… ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis the Peasant: You can’t expect to wield supreme power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: [grabs Dennis] Shut up! Will you shut up?!
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I’m being repressed!
Arthur: Bloody Peasant!
Dennis: Ooh, what a giveaway!
#2: WARNING- Foul Language

The Fairness Doctrine 2012

So if wealth is not a worldwide round-robin of purse-snatching, and if the thing that makes you rich doesn’t make me poor, why should we care about fairness at all? We shouldn’t.

Fairness is a good thing in marriage and at the day-care center.  It’s a nice little domestic virtue. But a liking for fairness is not that noble a sentiment.  Fairness doesn’t rank with charity, love, duty, or self-sacrifice.  And there’s always a tinge of self-seeking in making sure that things are fair.  Don’t you go trying to get one up on me. (PJ O’Rourke)

One of the most interesting aspects of this debate is that relatively few commentators tie the Obama “fairness” argument to the political tactics of collectivist ideologues.  Those tactics were once very well known: take a word or expression that people think we all know the meaning of – justice, democracy, peace, fairness – and appropriate it for militant statist schemes that actually portend something very different.  With this kind of political bait-and-switch fraud, you can gain control over the people that they had no idea they were ceding.  This has been the method of socialists for decades.

In the current case, for example, the Obama administration wants us to focus on “taxes” as we discuss disparities between rich and poor, and to predicate the whole debate on “fairness.”  We think we know what is meant by these terms.

But given the background and the trend of sentiments expressed by Obama and those in his administration, it is entirely reasonable to assess that what is important to them is not “taxes,” specifically, but “disparities between rich and poor,” and the association of “fairness” with giving the central government a charter to intervene in those disparities.  Taxes are a specific case on which to establish a general principle: that cultivating “fairness” requires government intervention.

Is fairness properly cultivated as a condition or an attitude?  The adult world once had a ready answer to that question.  Children were taught that we should take care to be fair with others (the attitude), but that life – in terms of events, outcomes, and other people – wouldn’t necessarily be fair (the condition).

  But no matter how fair we seek to be, there will continue to be unfair outcomes, and many of them will be out of our control. (hot air)

“Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes.”As usual, the president motivated the higher taxes with references to “fair play” and getting the wealthy to pay their “fair share” of taxes.

“Fairness” was the codeword of the State of the Union address, not the chronic problem of lingering high unemployment, something the president never even mentioned. (Fox)

Envy. Jealousy. Covetness. Some of the 7 deadly sins are what Obama and The Democrats want in order to win.

So what is Fair?

Is it Fair That I don’t make Millions of dollars a year or a movie or TV Show?

Would it not be more “fair” to make it illegal to make over say: $200,000 a year.

The problem is that all those who aren’t making $200,000 a year, it’s not “fair” to them still.

So to be fair, EVERYONE would have to make $200,000 a year. Even the pimply 16 year old who just handed you your fries.

Thus Tom Cruise, movie star, and Tom Cruise the Fast Food kid would make the same amount.

Now that’s “fair” isn’t it? 🙂

So do you think this has any chance of working. Not in this universe!

So you’d have to lower the expectations.

Say dropping some zeroes. Say $20,000.

So do you think this has any chance of working. Not in this universe!

For exactly same reason but not because businesses couldn’t afford it. Because No one who was making more than that would do it.

But it would be equally “fair” now wouldn’t it.

And we’d all be EQUAL as well. How could that be wrong??

We all know why. But that’s why the Democrats don’t go any farther than the “eat the rich” strategy.

Is it fair that I don’t look like Hugh Jackman?

Fat People, Skinny People, “beautiful” people and “ugly” people.

Is it fair that I’m not as talented as say, Tom Brady?

Is it fair I never got to to Harvard, like Obama?

Was it fair that my sister got better grades than I did?

Well, the Democrats really don’t care. They just want to use the worst instincts of people to win. They want you to see the worst in other people too.

And the worse it gets the better they feel.

Worst is First.

It’s not fair.

If we let fairness in the door as a controlling quantity, human history suggests that we will never meet its rigorous standard.  Nothing can ever be “fair” enough, because there will always be someone who isn’t happy with the current conditions, and can point out an undeniable situational disparity of one kind or another.

The sensation of unfairness comes from deep within the human consciousness.  But it cannot be assuaged by any perfect reordering of material conditions.  Indeed, when material conditions are promptly reordered in response to our childhood complaints about unfairness, that only encourages us to base our happiness on specific material conditions – and complain more and more readily at the drop of a hat.  On the other hand, when we learn to deal with unfairness under the tutelage of good-hearted, fair-minded adults, what we come away appreciating is the trust and sense of safety their fair-mindedness engenders in us, even though things aren’t always fair.

Fairness cannot be enforced, nor unfairness requited, by the actions of the state.  Politics doesn’t lead us, through its inherent clash of competing biases, to a universal standard of fairness.  It merely enforces one set of policy ideas over another.  The tendency of all of us to treat each other unequally in one way or another (many of them utterly benign) is not itself a reason for government to intervene between us, but rather for government – which is just other people to whom we have given authority – to be limited in what it can do to us, period.(hot air)

But for the Democrats that doesn’t get them what they want.

Complete Control of Everyone and everything.

And “fairness” is the ticket.

Fear, Envy, Covetness.

They want you to want the government to screw the “unfair”. The problem is, that that is inherently unfair and based solely on their own political bias and control freakishness.

In requiring “fairness” you don’t get it.

In requiring “equality” you don’t get it.

And you lose Freedom in the process.

The Democrats don’t care about any of them. They just want you to want it bad enough to re-elect them so they can take it away from you because you asked for it.

And the Republicans are too busy with their circular firing squad of death to notice.

Meanwhile, you don’t have a job. Your prospect are crappy. And Unemployment that officially has been over 8% for 3 years in a row suddenly vanishes in a haze of resentment.

But as long as you feel it’s “fair” everything is just perfect.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 

An Anniversary in Civility

1 year ago a nutcase shot and killed 6 people and wounded a Congresswoman.

The Leftists at The Daily Kos 1/10/11: It’s understandable that the Tea Party is trying its best to deflect any blame for the massacre in Tucson and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords. And it is understandable if, in their desperation, they might be driven to ridiculous excuses and spin on the level of Sarah Palin’s “surveyor marks” excuse.

But I guess the heat is getting to the Tea Party, because they are really going off the deep end in their rhetroric. Consider Tea Party Patriots leader Mark Meckler, who had this to say:

Overwhelmed by criticism of the right over the Arizona shooting in recent days, Tea Party Patriots Mark Meckler can barely control his anger.

“To see the left exploit this for political advantage – some people have no conscience,” Meckler said over the phone. “It’s genuinely revolting…I think it sinks to the level of evil.”

Added Meckler: “if these scumbags want to play it politically, let it be on their conscience.”

Yikes. Talk about a “HULK SMASH!” outburst.

Only the Tea Party never had anything to do with it and it’s not like the Left cared. They saw an opportunity for a cheap political stunt, they took it.

The New York Post was able to contact Spencer Giffords as he headed to the hospital, asking him if Ms. Giffords had any enemies. From the Post:

“Yeah,” he told The Post. “The whole tea party.”

He added that politicians constantly faced danger.

“They always get threat[ened],” Gifford cried. “We don’t really have any information. The Police department was supposed to call us but they didn’t.”

Sixty-three-year-old James Eric Fuller, who was shot during last week’s shooting in Arizona and survived, was arrested following a town-hall meeting yesterday for taking a picture of tea party leader Trent Humphries and yelling, “You’re dead!”

Yes, Fuller is also the guy who told reporters after the shooting, “It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target.”

The Leftists at the Slate 1/10/11: There’s something offensive, as well as pointless, about the politically charged inquiry into what might have been swirling inside the head of Jared Loughner. We hear that the accused shooter read The Communist Manifesto and liked flag-burning videos— good news for the right. Wait—he was a devotee of Ayn Rand and favored the gold standard, so he was a right-winger after all. Some assassinations embody an ideology, however twisted. Based on what we know so far, the Tucson killings look like more like politically tinged schizophrenia.

It was the anti-government, pro-gun, xenophobic populism that flourishes in the dry and angry climate of Arizona. Extremist shouters didn’t program Loughner, in some mechanistic way, to shoot Gabrielle Giffords. But the Tea Party movement did make it appreciably more likely that a disturbed person like Loughner would react, would be able to react, and would not be prevented from reacting, in the crazy way he did.

First you rile up psychotics with inflammatory language about tyranny, betrayal, and taking back the country. Then you make easy for them to get guns. But if you really want trouble, you should also make it hard for them to get treatment for mental illness. I don’t know if Loughner had health insurance, but he falls into a pool of people who often go uninsured—not young enough to be covered by parents (until the health-care bill’s coverage of twentysomethings kicked in a few months ago), not old enough for Medicare, not poor enough for Medicaid. If such a person happens to have a history of mental illness, he will be effectively uninsurable. To get treatment, he actually has to commit a crime. If Republicans succeed in repealing the Obama health care bill, that’s how it will remain.

Again, none of this says that Tea Party caused the Tucson tragedy, only that its politics increased the odds of something like it happening.

Jan 12,2011: From President Obama’s “Civility” speech

As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together.

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.

So which of these various statements and pronouncement are Lies or just inherently dishonest?

ALL OF THEM.

And the truth is a tragedy but the real tragedy lost on this for the last year:

Gabe Zimmerman, 30 Outreach Director for Giffords;John Roll, 63, a federal judge; Phyllis Schneck, 79; Dorothy Morris, 76; Dorwan Stoddard, 76; and Christina Taylor-Green, 9.

They are the true victims.

And politics ultimately had nothing to do with it. But after that was clearly apparent did anyone on the left notice?

No , of course not. They were already on to the next attack with absolutely no remorse or recollection.

And that’s the political lesson to be learned.

The rest is just a tragedy to be remembered properly.

Image

 

Whine & Cheese Tuesday

Heard this one before: “My plan says we’re going to put teachers back in the classrooms, construction workers back to work,” (government union and union employees– the more they are back to work the more union money he can collect) President Obama said at a campaign event today. “Tax cuts for small businesses, tax cuts for hiring veterans, tax cuts if you give your workers a raise –- that’s my plan.”

“The Republicans plan, Obama says, boils down to this: ‘Dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.'”

Gee, where’s throwing grandma out in the streets, off a cliff or eating dog food?

Kids starving?

Let’s Kill Kenny?

FEAR IS HOPE

Vote for me, the other guy’s an asshole!

Or better yet, he came up with government Health Care before I did! (Romney!)

“We’ve decided, let’s let them do the right thing one more time. We’re going to give them another chance to do their jobs by looking after your jobs. So this week, I’m asking members of Congress to vote. What we’re going to do is we’re going to break up my jobs bill. Maybe they just couldn’t understand the whole thing all at once. So we’re going to break it up into bite-size pieces so they can take a thoughtful approach to this legislation,” President Obama said at a campaign stop in Asheville, NC.

Congress = Republicans. The Democrats who voted against the thing and sunk it don’t count. But we’ll give them another shot at doing everything we want them to do. Namely, SPEND EVEN MORE MONEY! especially on Union members.

Meanwhile, the Senate Democrats can pass the Constitutionally required budget in over 900 days.

But it’s all the other guy’s fault, he’s a heartless asshole, you know. 🙂

The OCCUPIERS

It just gets better and Better, doesn’t it Comrade?  🙂

The revolution will be corporate-sponsored! That’s according to Harrison Schultz, an Occupy Wall Street organizer who also happens to be a “business intelligence analyst” at a publicly traded company. On a limited-access email list shared by Occupy protesters, Schultz wrote of a ”Corporate Funded Revolution,” calling it “a revolutionary plan.”

Despite protesters’ occupation of a New York City park and their stated goal of ending corporate influence — particularly of Wall Street — in government, e-mails emerged Monday showing Schultz and other anti-corporate organizers were a little more corporate than they like to let on.

“My scheme is to commodify any traffic I manage to successfully drive to the occupywallst.org site, open it up and sell it as advertising space to corporations…,” Schultz allegedly wrote. “A Corporate Funded Revolution is a contradiction in terms, its practically an oxymoron. Something we’ve never considered before. It’s a revolutionary plan…”

Orwell, anyone?

Or better yet, an Occupier Barbie and Slacker Occupier Pot head Ken!! (with optional Nazi Gear)

Occupier Bratz Dolls.

Maybe there’s an App for that! 🙂

Or maybe we should just go after the kids some more:

In response to protest organizer Kelley Wolcott’s open request to “coordinate” a “family day,” another mailing list member offered up socialist literature for use during the festivities.

“I have a story book called Tales for Little Rebels: A Collection of Radical Children’s Literature, with stories ranging from Dr. Seuss to Bolshevik sponsored ‘Fairy Tales for Worker’s Children,’” Nicolas Moselle Allen wrote. “Let me know if you would like this!”

A publisher’s blurb for “Tales for Little Rebels” introduces the book by noting that “[r]ather than teaching children to obey authority, to conform, or to seek redemption through prayer, twentieth-century leftists encouraged children to question the authority of those in power. Tales for Little Rebels collects forty-three mostly out-of-print stories, poems, comic strips, primers, and other texts for children that embody this radical tradition.”

NYU Press describes one of the “tales” this way: “In 1912, a revolutionary chick cries, ‘Strike down the wall!’ and liberates itself from the ‘egg state.’” In another, written against a 1940 backdrop, “ostriches pull their heads out of the sand and unite to fight fascism.” A third tale, set in 1972, tells the story of “Baby X,” who “grows up without a gender and is happy about it.” (DC)

Van Jones, The former “Green Czar” and self-admitted Communist: “We should let the spirit of this movement co-opt the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the whole country. It’s the best thing in America right now,” Van Jones said about the Occupy Wall Street movement. (RP)

Viva La Revolution! 🙂

I am in fact recently returned from OWS HQ in Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan — a magnificent little isle. It’s run by this one-percenter (as opposed to us, the noble 99 percent) named  “Mayor Bloomberg,” who feels just sick about how rich he is, so he’ll only accept one dollar a year in mayoral salary. Proving that you get what you pay for. Over the years, he has banned everything from clergy at 9/11 ceremonies to smoking at city parks or beaches to trans fats in restaurants. But if you’re an unhygienic anarchist costing the city untold sums in police overtime while camping out for a month, serving dirty-fingernail gazpacho without a food-service permit , and pinching a loaf on a squad car, then hey — his casa es su casa!

I don’t wish, however, to harsh the OWS mellow, as we who are pretending it’s still the sixties like to say .

I also made new friends, like Spooky the Anarchist, a masked-up willfully homeless con artist who was charging tourists to have their picture taken with him, and who described the scene as a “homeless man’s dream camp,” which afforded him everything from free food to free clothing. Then there was Sid the Nazi, an obscenity-spewing white supremacist who had also found common cause with the grab-bag of fellow grievance groupers. Sid explained to me how there’s been a lot of America-approved genocides, from Nagasaki to the American Indian, but when someone like Hitler does the Jews wrong — everybody starts crying about it. Not that he’s admitting Hitler did anything to the Jews. Nor that it was wrong. That’s what the Jewish-controlled media wants you to believe.

But even Sid the Nazi had his fill of his fellow protesters, when getting handed all the commie literature — an affront to good taste, and to Hitler. (Old rivalries die hard.) Of course, Spooky and Sid the Nazi and commie literature make for much inconvenience for the scads of leftoid apologists trying to pretend that OWS is about something that it’s not. As do hard poll numbers, such as New York magazine’s report that over one-third of the attendees believe the U.S. government is no better than al Qaida.

Yes, plenty of greedhead Wall Street types abused the hell out of the system, and caused our country great pain. Nobody can honestly dispute that. Likewise, plenty of people are hurting (some of them my friends and family), and understandably want somebody to blame. But what is this particular protest about? From my experience, I learned that it’s primarily about overeducated, underemployed twentysomethings who are frustrated they haven’t found their dream jobs as documentary filmmakers in the worst economy in several generations, all while amassing 100 grand in student loans. Perhaps they should instead occupy the NYU admissions office, or better still, question their choices and keep their fingers crossed for a rebound. (Things must not be too dire, however, since several protesters I spoke with had quit their jobs to join the movement.) But instead, they’d rather blame JPMorgan Chase for everything from their eczema to their poor Wi-Fi connectivity, so that they can play bongos in the park while pretending their permanent disaffection is about credit default swaps, if they even know what those are.

And this is the larger problem with their movement, as it is with so many movements, truth be told. Movements seek to generalize, and to patch over specifics. To make the complex simple. To find convenient fall guys, and a universal theory of everything. So that if I bought a Mercedes when all I could afford was a Toyota, or bought a $900,000 McMansion when all I could really afford was a townhouse, it must be Lehman Brothers’ fault, not mine. (Matt Labash)

Thomas Sowell:

Like so many people, in so many countries, who started out to “spread the wealth,” Barack Obama has ended up spreading poverty.

Have you ever heard anyone as incoherent as the people staging protests across the country? Taxpayers ought to be protesting against having their money spent to educate people who end up unable to say anything beyond repeating political catch phrases.

It is hard to understand politics if you are hung up on reality. Politicians leave reality to others. What matters in politics is what you can get the voters to believe, whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not.

I hate getting bills that show a zero balance. If I don’t owe anything, why bother me with a bill? There is too much junk mail already.

Radical feminists seem to assume that men are hostile to women. But what would they say to the fact that most of the women on the Titanic were saved, and most of the men perished — due to rules written by men and enforced by men on the sinking ship?

If he were debating Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich could chew him up and spit him out.

Whether the particular issue is housing, medical care or anything in between, the agenda of the left is to take the decision out of the hands of those directly involved and transfer that decision to third parties, who pay no price for making decisions that turn out to be counterproductive.

It is truly the era of the New Math when a couple making $125,000 a year each are taxed at rates that are said to apply to “millionaires and billionaires.”

On many issues, the strongest argument of the left is that there is no argument. This has been the left’s party line on the issue of man-made global warming and the calamities they claim will follow. But there are many scientists — some with Nobel Prizes — who have repudiated the global warming hysteria.

With professional athletes earning megabucks incomes, it is a farce to punish their violations of rules with fines. When Serena Williams was fined $2,000 for misconduct during a tennis match, that was like fining you or me a nickel or a dime. Suspensions are something that even the highest-paid athletes can feel.

Most of us may lament the fact that so many more people are today dependent on food stamps and other government subsidies. But dependency usually translates into votes for whoever is handing out the benefits, so an economic disaster can be a political bonanza, as it was for Franklin D. Roosevelt. Don’t count Obama out in 2012.

Politicians can solve almost any problem — usually by creating a bigger problem. But, so long as the voters are aware of the problem that the politicians have solved, and unaware of the bigger problems they have created, political “solutions” are a political success.

Do people who advocate special government programs for blacks realize that the federal government has had special programs for American Indians, including affirmative action, since the early 19th century — and that American Indians remain one of the few groups worse off than blacks?

I hope the people who are challenging Obamacare in the Supreme Court point out that the equal application of the laws, mandated by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, is violated when the president can arbitrarily grant hundreds of waivers to the Obamacare law to his political favorites, while everyone else has to follow its costly provisions.

People who live within their means are increasingly being forced to pay for people who didn’t live within their means — whether individual home buyers here or whole nations in Europe.

Regardless of how the current Republican presidential nomination process ends, I hope that they will never again have these televised “debates” among a crowd of candidates, which just turn into a circular firing squad — damaging whoever ends up with the nomination, and leaving the voters knowing only who is quickest with glib answers.

Have you noticed that we no longer seem to be hearing the old familiar argument that illegal aliens are just taking jobs that Americans won’t do?

Fascinating…

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok