Arizona

I didn’t vote in yesterday’s Arizona Primary. Not because I didn’t want to. or I was lazy. It was my day off. Not because of the reports of lines taking hours to vote.

Because I couldn’t. I was Not Allowed to Vote!

I’m a registered Independent. I was not welcome at the party.

KPHO-TV: The largest group of registered voters in Arizona cannot vote in Tuesday’s Presidential Preference Election.

Voters registered without a party preference now make up the largest voting bloc in Arizona.

According to the Arizona Secretary of State, more than 3 million people are registered to vote in Arizona.

Of those, 1.2 million are registered as Independent.

“The idea that you should be forced to take part in a party to be able to participate in the system is the most un-American thing I can think of,” said former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson. “They system today totally discriminates against Independents.”

Johnson has pushed for Arizona to move to a top-two system that would put all candidates on a single ballot, without party preference.

Arizona is one of 24 states where voters must register with a party to vote in the state’s primary.

So I stayed home.

Trump crushed my candidate Ted Cruz.

But the only satisfaction I got from yesterday was not really good in the long run. That of telling the all the little wide-eyed, rose-colored, almost-hippie like Bernie Zombies that the fix was in and being proven correct as Hillary crushed Uncle Bernie here in AZ.

The problem with a Dishonest Socialist (besides the whole Socialist thing) is that they are Dishonest. Hillary is the Dishonest Socialist. Unlike Uncle Bernie who has been a honest Socialist all his life.

He believes in it. His minions believe in his dream of “free stuff”.

Hillary, on the other hand is just power-mad evil personified.

She’s the Sith Lord of Socialists.

The Bernie Zombies who were all fresh faced and excited yesterday, are silent today.

Maybe they learned a lesson about power, but I doubt it.

While the victory in Arizona was needed, the loss of any delegates in Utah handed a blow to the Trump campaign as he seeks to avoid a contested convention in Cleveland in July. As it stands, Trump has 739 out of the 1,237 delegates needed, according to Real Clear Politics’ count. In comparison, with Utah’s 40 delegates, Cruz will have a total of 465 delegates.

So the Establishment will likely get there Brokered, smoke-filled Backroom, Convention.

And Hillary will benefit greatly from it.

And America will die. Once and For all.

But as Yogi Berra once said, “It ain’t over until it’s over”

And there is still Hope (just not the Obama type Hope, I hope).

Like Trump, Clinton’s luck changed after Arizona as well.

Speaking to his supports after losing in Arizona, Sanders contended that the race wasn’t over yet and predicted that he would pick up a victory later in the night — and in Utah and Idaho he was correct.

“I am enormously grateful to the people of Utah and Idaho for the tremendous voter turnouts that gave us victories with extremely large margins,” Sanders said in a statement following his victories. “The impressive numbers of young people and working-class people who participated in the process are exactly what the political revolution is all about. These decisive victories in Idaho and Utah give me confidence that we will continue to win major victories in the coming contests.”

Idaho’s 23 delegates and Utah’s 33 delegates will be split proportionally between Clinton and Sanders as was Arizona’s 75 delegates.

Idaho’s Democratic caucuses were open to anyone, regardless of party affiliation, who is eligible to vote in November’s general election and didn’t vote in the GOP primary which was held earlier in March.

Amazing hings can happen when you LET people vote.

Would things have been different if Independents like me were allowed to vote?

We’ll never know. There were potentially a million voters who weren’t invited to The Party. 🙂

 

 

 

Vote Often

While Barack Obama may believe that climate change is the greatest national security threat facing our nation, a strong case could be made that the president’s own political party actually presents a much more, clear and present danger to the survival of the United States of America.

This week Hillary Clinton, the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for president, announced that she believed that a law should be enacted establishing automatic voter registration upon reaching the age of eighteen.

But Mrs. Clinton is adamantly opposed to any voter identification requirements, accusing Republicans of trying to prevent millions of Americans from exercising that most basic of American rights.

Probably the most important of our Constitutional guarantees as an American citizen, the right to vote and determine our future, yet Mrs. Clinton is more interested in making it easier for anyone to vote, including illegal aliens, convicted felons, and the deceased, than to protect that important right only for Americans. The facts are that the overwhelming majority of voter fraud cases that have occurred in recent elections involve Democrats committing the fraud.

The right to vote that veterans have fought and bled to preserve and protect for American citizens, yet Mrs. Clinton’s position and a position voiced by most Democrats, weakens our election process and certainly is a threat to our national security.

In addition, countless members of the Democrat Party repeatedly try to infringe upon American’s Second Amendment rights, the very right that guarantees our right to vote, by offering any number of strict gun control laws and legislation every chance they get. Including back door efforts by this administration to circumvent the Constitution, the Congress, and the very will of the people.

Secretary of State Clinton oversaw the State Department during the Benghazi attacks which occurred on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack to happen in American history.

Instead of stepping up and working to find the causes of this tragedy and look for answers to help prevent another such attack, Secretary Clinton goes into political self-preservation mode and blames it on an amateur video clip.

Other Democrats fall in line to protect their future candidate for president and place roadblocks in front of committees investigating Benghazi. It seems politics and protecting Hillary for the party is more important than the truth and protecting Americans.

Barack Obama champions his administration for not leaving an American serviceman behind with a choreographed ceremony on the White House lawn, but only after trading five dangerous terrorists for an Army deserter. Yet the Obama Administration was AWOL when it came to providing help to those Americans fighting courageously on a rooftop in Benghazi and most assuredly left them behind.

The president weakens our military through Defense Department budget cuts and controversial social experimentation by allowing gays to serve openly in the military, and their directives to open Special Operations and other combat arms positions to women. Which includes lowering the standards if necessary to make it possible for women to wear the coveted Green Beret or the Navy Trident.

And he continues in his quest to close down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility where the worst of the worst Islamic terrorists are being held securely away from American shores. All the while releasing terrorist after terrorist from GITMO who have returned to Jihad, killing innocent people and American soldiers.

Followed blindly and supported by Democrats in Congress and the Senate, Barack Obama passed the Affordable Care Act which has been eroding and destroying the world’s best health care system ever since. With coverage diminishing and premiums skyrocketing Americans are rapidly turning against the president’s signature legislative accomplishment, if it can be called an accomplishment.

Considering all of the things done by Democrats to weaken the United States of America, it seems the president is completely wrong in his assessment of what’s the most dangerous national security threat facing this country.

All one has to do is look at him and his party’s decisions since he took office and it’s patently obvious that the Democratic Party itself poses the gravest threat to America’s national security. (townhall)

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Brazil Nuts

Dependency: A Brazilian economist has shown a near-exact correlation between last Sunday’s presidential election voting choices and each state’s welfare ratios. Sure enough, handouts are the lifeblood of the left.

Much of the attention in Brazil’s presidential election has been on the surprise rise of Aecio Neves, the center-right candidate who bolted to second place in the space of a week in the first round of Brazil’s election last Sunday, putting him in a face-off against leftist incumbent Dilma Rousseff at the end of the month.

Neves won 34% of the vote, Rousseff took 42% and green party candidate Marina Silva took about 20% — and on Thursday, Silva endorsed Neves, making it a contest of free-market ideas vs. big-government statism.

But what’s even more telling is an old story — shown in an infographic by popular Brazilian economist Ricardo Amorim.

In a Twitter post, Amorim showed a near-exact correlation among Brazil’s states’ welfare dependency and their votes for leftist Workers Party incumbent Rousseff.

Virtually every state that went for Rousseff has at least 25% of the population dependent on Brazil’s Bolsa Familia welfare program of cash for single mothers, given for keeping children vaccinated and in school.

States with less than 25% of the population on Bolsa Familia overwhelmingly went for Neves and his policies of growth.

The World Bank and others praise Bolsa Familia’s “poverty alleviation.” Problem is, “some experts warn that a wide majority cannot get out of this dependence relationship with the government,” as the U.K. Guardian put it.

And whether it’s best for a country that aspires to become a global economic powerhouse to have a quarter of the population — 50 million people — dependent on welfare and producing nothing is questionable.

The cash payouts amount to a half percentage of GDP and 2.5% of government spending. Money spent on welfare is money that can’t be put to use in creating jobs.

Amorim points out that Brazil’s 2% average GDP between 2011 and 2013 is the second lowest in all Latin America, topping only El Salvador, another country with a sizable welfare population — and millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S.

Fact is, the left cannot survive without a vast class of dependents. And once in, dependents have difficulty getting out.

So Brazil’s election may come down to a question of whether it wants to be a an economic powerhouse — or a handout republic.

https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/in-dependence-2014/

 

The Dole: New data on federal public assistance programs show we’ve reached an ignominious milestone: More than 100 million Americans are getting some form of “means-tested” welfare assistance.

The Census Bureau found 51 million on food stamps at the end of 2012 and 83 million on Medicaid, with tens of millions of households getting both. Another 4 million were on unemployment insurance.

The percentage of American households on welfare has reached 35%. If we include other forms of government assistance such as Medicare and Social Security, almost half of all households are getting a check or other form of government assistance. The tipping point is getting closer and closer. (IBD)

And it’s not for a lack of trying on the Democrats part.

Dependence is good for the country, after all. Remember, Unemployment is Job Stimulus! 🙂

We are from the Government and we are here to help you…. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

 

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Job Creation Myth

Remember when ObamaCare was going to CREATE jobs? When unemployment was good for economic growth (“Unemployment Benefits ‘One of the Most Important Stimuli for the Economy”) well now we have the latest in the Democrat Ideological Job Creation Myths.

Illegal Aliens!! (aka Future Welfare Voting Democrats).

When asked whether legalizing illegal immigrants would help unemployed Americans, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D.-Md.) responded by pointing to testimony from the director of the Congressional Budget Office that Van Hollen said indicated enactment of the Senate immigration bill (which gave illegal aliens a “path to citizenship’) would “reduce the deficit and increase long-term economic growth.”

Van Hollen responded: “I think what we need to do is pass comprehensive immigration reform, and I just came from a hearing with the non-partisan director of the Congressional Budget Office, who testified that if you passed the Senate bipartisan bill, you will reduce the deficit and increase long-term economic growth in the United States,” Van Hollen replied.

This would be the latest in the “CBO says…” line of  Democrat ‘arguments’ for their ideological needs.

Mind you ever since the CBO gave the Dems the green light on ObamaCare (with fake the false numbers provided by the Dems) the CBO has been whithering bad to the Democrats.

But THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA.

So the CBO is good when they agree with The Agenda, and are ignored when they don’t.

Just like most Democrat Agenda items. The ‘evidence’ is always in their favor and any evidence to the contrary is a lie, “racist” or some other form of contempt is heaped upon it.

It’s all too predictable really.

After all, Foster parents have the ability to collect more than $7,400 per month, considering that they can house six immigrants at any given time.

So Illegal Aliens are a stimulus. Just like Unemployment. So what we need is even more of them!

Don’t worry, be happy. We are from the Government and we are here to help you! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

 

The Final Arbiters

Thomas Jefferson: When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated …. — Letter to C. Hammond, July 1821

The Health and Human Services Department earlier this year exposed just how vast the government’s data collection efforts will be on millions of Americans as a result of ObamaCare.

Big Brother will be watching you! And he will know everything…. (and the Supreme Court is the final arbiter -see later farther down)

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., asked HHS to provide “a complete list of agencies that will interact with the Federal Data Services Hub.” The Hub is a central feature of ObamaCare, since it will be used by the new insurance exchanges to determine eligibility for benefits, exemptions from the federal mandate, and how much to grant in federal insurance subsidies.

In response, the HHS said the ObamaCare data hub will “interact” with seven other federal agencies: Social Security Administration, the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Veterans Administration, Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Defense and — believe it or not — the Peace Corps. Plus the Hub will plug into state Medicaid databases.

And what sort of data will be “routed through” the Hub? Social Security numbers, income, family size, citizenship and immigration status, incarceration status, and enrollment status in other health plans, according to the HHS.

“The federal government is planning to quietly enact what could be the largest consolidation of personal data in the history of the republic,” noted Stephen Parente, a University of Minnesota finance professor.

Not to worry, says the Obama administration. “The hub will not store consumer information, but will securely transmit data between state and federal systems to verify consumer application information,” it claimed in an online fact sheet .

And no one will steal or hack anything. 🙂 No Wiki-Snowden… 🙂

But a regulatory notice filed by the administration in February tells a different story.

That filing describes a new “system of records” that will store names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, taxpayer status, gender, ethnicity, email addresses, telephone numbers on the millions of people expected to apply for coverage at the ObamaCare exchanges, as well as “tax return information from the IRS, income information from the Social Security Administration, and financial information from other third-party sources.”

They will also store data from businesses buying coverage through an exchange, including a “list of qualified employees and their tax ID numbers,” and keep it all on file for 10 years.

In addition, the filing says the federal government can disclose this information “without the consent of the individual” to a wide range of people, including “agency contractors, consultants, or grantees” who “need to have access to the records” to help run ObamaCare, as well as law enforcement officials to “investigate potential fraud.”

Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., complained that just months before ObamaCare officially starts, the Obama administration still hasn’t answered “even the most basic questions about the Data Hub,” such as who will have access to what information, or what training and clearances will be required.

Beyond these concerns is the government’s rather sorry record in protecting confidential information.

Late last year, for example, a hacker was able to gain access to a South Carolina database that contained Social Security numbers and bank account data on 3.6 million people.

A Government Accountability Office report found that weaknesses in IRS security systems “continue to jeopardize the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the financial and sensitive taxpayer information.”

A separate inspector general audit found that the IRS inadvertently disclosed information on thousands of taxpayers between 2009 and 2010. In 2011, the Social Security Administration accidentally released names, birth dates and Social Security numbers of tens of thousands of Americans.

If these government agencies can’t protect data kept on their own servers, how much more vulnerable will these databases be when they’re constantly getting tapped by the ObamaCare Data Hub?

In any case, creating even richer and more comprehensive databases on Americans will create a powerful incentive to abuse them among those looking to score political points by revealing private information or criminals who want to steal identities.

A recent CNN poll found that 62% of Americans say “government is so large and powerful that it threatens the rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans.”

What will the public think once ObamaCare and its vast data machine is in full force? (IBD)

More likely, what will they be allowed to think?

The Imperial Judiciary

A House, Senate and president together defending traditional marriage is ruled unconstitutional. Can a Roe v. Wade-like “right” to same-sex marriage — pulverizing religious liberty — be far behind?

Under ObamaCare, the Obama administration is already trying to force religious institutions to violate their precepts and fund abortions, or be found in violation of law. There is little, if any, distance between that kind of disregard for religious freedom and forcing churches to marry same-sex couples — a new kind of “shotgun wedding” for the 21st century.

That is where the imperial judiciary quite clearly intends to take us, running over anything standing in the way. As Justice Scalia’s scathing dissent in Wednesday’s 5-to-4 U.S. v. Windsor ruling observes: “In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy — Ronald Reagan’s biggest, longest-lasting mistake — joined with the high court’s four liberals, charging in his decision that large majorities of both houses of Congress, not to mention President Bill Clinton, in 1996 chose “to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage” today.

The court declared Congress “cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” It takes the judicial elite to construe the Bill of Rights’ safeguard against being “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” as a license to keep elected officials from acting to protect man’s oldest institution from being revolutionized.

As Scalia noted, the court was “eager — hungry — to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case” — so much so that it, unprecedentedly, took on a case in which the five justices actually “agree that the court below got it right.”

The result is “a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere ‘primary’ in its role.”

“The most important moral, political, and cultural decisions affecting our lives are steadily being removed from democratic control” Judget Bork 1996 (!)

Thomas Jefferson: If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

Thomas Jefferson: You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. ….Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

“The Teahouse of the August Moon”. Glenn Ford plays an American officer attempting to explain democracy to the Japanese after World War II. He says, “democracy is where the people have the right to make the wrong decisions.” The statement is the essence of democracy. If elected officials make the wrong decision on behalf of the people voters can rectify the situation by electing replacement officials to make the right decisions. If non-elected officials make the wrong decisions the people have no recourse other than overthrowing the government.

People don’t become infallible just because they hold a high government office even if they are absolute monarchs who have supposedly been chosen by their deities to run the government. Those of us who are familiar with the history of the Supreme Court known that it is extremely fallible. The Supreme Court has made some extremely bad decisions, particularly.when it has gotten involved in social issues with decisions involving social theories rather than law.

The decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford is easily the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court. The Court attempted to use the case to deal with the divisive social issue of slavery. Chief Justice Roger Taney’s ruling inflamed northern public opinion against slavery which many northerners regarded as immoral. The decision insured that slavery would be a major issue in the 1860 presidential election. The decision didn’t cause the Civil War, but provided the catalyst to turn the controversy over slavery and broader economic issues into a war.

The 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision is the Court’s second worst decision. The Court’s acceptance of the questionable social concept of “separate but equal” condemned generations of black southerners to mistreatment including rape and murder. The Court refused to admit that “separate but equal” was nonsense until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.

“Separate but equal’ wasn’t the only nonsense theory the Court accepted in the late 19th Century. The Court prevented state government from protecting workers from exploitive employers by accepting a nonsense theory called “freedom of contract”. Under this theory, government protection of workers supposedly prevented their “free” ability to contract with employers. The Court ignored the fact that workers weren’t in a position to negotiate. They had to accept bad working conditions or risk possible starvation. (Free Republic)

So with the trend of making the Supreme Court the final arbiter of everything makes them supremely powerful and that is a very dangerous game.

After all, the people Boo-ing and Hissing the Supreme Court the day before on the Voting Rights Acts are the ones dancing in the street and celebrating the next day!
And Vice  Versa.
If that doesn’t mean the whole thing is unstable what does?
Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

 Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

The Future is Here

Today is a simple choice.

You can choose Freedom for the Individual  over Slavery to The Government.

Capitalism/Free Enterprise over European Socialism.

Independence over Dependence.

Hope over Fear

Or Not!

It’s your choice. But also remember it’s your children’s future as well.

So chose well. For yourself and for them.

Now on to the The Ministry of Truth: So how early today will they declare Obama the winner in an attempt to suppress the vote and get what THEY want?? 🙂

And they are intentionally suppressing the Military vote because they would vote for Romney overwhelmingly.

And anyone seen the Black Panthers yet? 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Mi Casa Su Casa

Surprise! The Pro-Illegal Justice Department thinks Sheriff Joe is being mean to Hispanics. Gee, you needed years for Pro-Illegal liberals to come up with a report that says that?

This is the Justice Department that is actively suing the State of Arizona for wanting to enforce Federal Immigration Laws (much less than what they accuse their favorite Hispanic ‘Nazi’ of). The very same Justice Department that is trying Fast and Furiously to cover up as much of “Fast & Furious” as possible.

The very same that refused to sentence already convicted Blank Panthers of Voter intimidation.

Oh, by the way, it’s been a year now since Agent Brian Terry was killed by a gun the ATF not only let be walked into Mexico, be demanded that it be walked into Mexico!

This is the Pro-Illegal Justice Department that refuses to even arrest most illegals, thus “arrests of illegals are down at the border” they’ll tout as there accomplishment.

It’s “down” so much that they can drop the number of troops on the border to virtually nil.

After all, “it’s more secure now than it has ever been” according to Big Sis.

Have you tossed your cookies yet?

Then you hear this:

Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano has directed ICE to prepare for a mass influx of immigrants into the United States, calling for the plan to deal with the “shelter” and “processing” of large numbers of people.

“The Department of Homeland Security wants a plan to deal with sudden mass migrations of immigrants to the U.S.,” reports Government Security News .

“DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, according to a statement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, recently directed ICE to develop a national-level mass migration plan. The plan will outline how to address the health care, sheltering, processing, transition and disposition of large numbers of undocumented individuals who might arrive in the U.S. as the result of a mass migration, said ICE on Dec. 13.”

Part of the preparations for sheltering and processing an influx of people includes the construction and manning of detention camps.

Anyone smell rotten bovine fecal matter? And you know that something disgustingly political is coming.

Vote for Democrats, We aren’t Racists!

We’re going to crush the major resistance to our ignoring of border protection so get ready to rush the border and get your freebies.

“Discrimination undermines law enforcement and erodes the public trust,” Napolitano said

Willfully refusing to enforce the law and actively working do just that erodes “public trust” also Janet? But you don’t care about that now do you?

And don’t forget to vote Democrat! 🙂

Welcome all illegals to your United States. Our home is your home.”-Sherriff Joe on Obama’s Justice Department

Mi Casa Su Casa! 🙂

Border we don’t need no stinkin’ borders. Borders are for violent, discriminatory racists!

And you think you’re safe if your already here (and not in the Democrat’s demographics):

The White House is signing off on a controversial new law that would authorize the U.S. military to arrest and indefinitely detain alleged al Qaeda members or other terrorist operatives captured on American soil.

Terrorist? Someone who disagrees with his the Government? 🙂

“By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in U.S. law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.”

But they can come over the border without any enforcement.

So you may be a “terrorist” for advocating we enforce the Border. After all, only racists want to enforce it.

Vote for Democrats, We aren’t Racists!

It is no surprise Democrats, led by Barack Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder are against voter i.d. laws. After all, dead people can’t vote if you ask them to identify themselves. Voter fraud in every election is a concern, but with Obama’s past ties to ACORN and Holder’s abuse of Justice Department power, 2012 is looking like a battle for the ages when it comes to voting requirements and preventing abuse.

In the name of “civil rights,” he’s declared war on a nationwide movement to ensure the integrity of the electoral process.

Just this year, eight states have passed new photo-ID laws; more than half now have some form of ID requirement for voting. But Holder has already sicced Justice’s Civil Rights Division on new voter-ID laws in South Carolina and Texas to see if there’s any “disproportionate impact” on minorities. He’s also objecting to reforms in “early voting” in places like Florida, which recently tightened its electoral window.

Liberals have long insisted that voter fraud is a “myth,” and voter-ID laws a plot to suppress turnout among “people who are more likely to vote Democratic, particularly the young, the poor, the elderly and minorities,” in the words of The New York Times.

Now that’s chutzpah coming from New York City, where the organized-crime ring known as Tammany Hall regularly and proudly stole municipal and statewide elections well into the 20th century with its army of “repeaters” — men who altered their appearances by shaving or changing their clothes so they could “vote early and often” — and other tactics.

Nor is it history. Just this week, the chairman of the Indiana Democratic Party resigned in the wake of election-fraud allegations involving forged ballot-petition signatures that are now under investigation.

Nor is it “merely” registration fraud. The Commission on Federal Election Reform, created after the 2004 election and co-chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker, uncovered examples of vote-buying, repeat voting and absentee-ballot fraud. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in upholding Indiana’s voter-ID law in 2008, “flagrant examples of such fraud have been documented throughout this nation’s history by respected historians and journalists.”

So, while Holder intones that unfettered access to the ballot box “must be viewed not only as a legal issue but a moral imperative,” his real agenda is surely politics: Fraud generally benefits Democratic candidates.

From this point forward, we will here the argument that “Republicans want to prevent minorities from voting and want to go back to the days of slavery. Republicans wanting you to show i.d. at the polls is proof! Minorities in poor communities don’t have access to identification. They’re taking away your right to vote.” (Katie Pavlich)

Vote for a Democrat, We aren’t a Racist!

WE Know Better

Some Liberals are feeling the heat of their spending binge. They have a banned a commercial because they don’t like it.

A new television ad about the U.S. national debt produced by Citizens Against Government Waste has been deemed “too controversial” by major networks including ABC, A&E and The History Channel and will not be shown on those channels. The commercial is a homage to a 1986 ad that was entitled “The Deficit Trials” that was also banned by the major networks. Apparently telling the truth about the national debt is a little too “hot” for the major networks to handle. But perhaps it is time to tell the American people the truth. In 1986, the U.S. national debt was around 2 trillion dollars. Today, it is rapidly approaching 14 trillion dollars. The American Dream is being ripped apart right in front of our eyes, but apparently some of the major networks don’t want the American people to really understand what is going on.

The truth is that the ad does not even have anything in it that should be offensive. The commercial is set in the year 2030, and the main character is a Chinese professor that is seen lecturing his students on the fall of great empires. As images of the United States are shown on a screen behind him, the Chinese professor tells his students the following about the behavior of great empires: “They all make the same mistakes. Turning their backs on the principles that made them great. America tried to spend and tax itself out of a great recession. Enormous so-called “stimulus” spending, massive changes to health care, government takeover of private industries, and crushing debt.”

Perhaps it is what the Chinese Professor says next that is alarming the big television networks: “Of course, we owned most of their debt, so now they work for us”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOpyggmTmeE&feature=player_embedded#!

I think it’s one of the best, most accurate commercials ever. That must be why it threatens liberals.

The Truth always threatens liberals.

 

Super-genius political science professor Charles H. Franklin of the University of Wisconsin, Madison recently gave loud voice to a widely held liberal belief: Ordinary Americans, especially conservative ones, are stupid.

At a conference by the Society of Professional Journalists, alternative newspaper editor Bill Lueders asked Franklin why “the public seemed to vote against its own interests and stated desires, for instance by electing candidates who’ll drive up the deficit with fiscally reckless giveaways to the rich.”

Franklin responded: “I’m not endorsing the American voter. They’re pretty damn stupid.” (Excuse my impertinence, but is there a grammatical glitch in the genius’s formulation?)

First, we should note that Franklin implicitly accepted Lueders’ premise as fact: The voters who claim to be motivated by a passion to end reckless Washington spending had just elected candidates who will be fiscally irresponsible because they support “reckless giveaways to the rich.”

But how smart is it to mischaracterize a policy, misrepresent its likely consequences and ignore other relevant data to arrive at an ideologically preordained conclusion?
Extending Bush tax cuts for those making $250,000 or more would not be a giveaway. We’re not talking about the government’s money, but money earned by individuals. Only leftists believe that all income is the property of the state and that the amount remaining after income taxes is a gift from the government to the individual.

Moreover, the tax rates we’re discussing have been in place since 2003. To extend those rates would not be a cut. To fail to extend them would constitute a tax increase. I suppose “intelligence” doesn’t require the honest use of terminology.

In addition, the premise is overly simplistic because it suggests that extending the Bush rates for the highest income bracket would cost the government revenues dollar for dollar, as if we have a completely static economy. The mentally gifted simply refuse to acknowledge the empirical evidence showing that reductions in marginal income tax rates during the Kennedy years, the Reagan years and the George W. Bush years resulted in increases in revenue. They also fail to factor in the economic truism that tax increases during bad economic times retard growth and thus constitute a drag on tax revenues.

Finally, the premise ignores that voters were rejecting Obama’s big spending across the board and that the extension of the Bush rates would be only one small part of the equation. Those voting out the Democrats were overwhelmingly repudiating Obama’s reckless spending in virtually every other category — save defense. That is, they voted not against their interests, Mr. Lueders and Professor Franklin, but consistent with them.

You might be interested in some other pronouncements by Professor Erudition. One example: In an article in Politico about a year ago, Franklin wrote, “The issue that has dominated the summer and fall, health care reform, will most likely not remain high on voters’ list of the most important problems in 12 months regardless of the outcome of legislation.” Well, exit polls showed that 20 percent of voters believed health care was not only important but the most important issue. Doubtless, a full majority of voters believed it was among the most important problems, even if not the most important.

The liberal intelligentsia’s contempt for the American people is well-established. Franklin’s snarky outburst is little different from then-ABC anchorman Peter Jennings’ statement that American voters had a temper tantrum when they delivered a congressional majority to Republicans in 1994, Obama’s assessment that voters are irrational because they are scared, or the Bush haters bitterly decrying the 2000 and 2004 elections with their observation that red-state voters were “reality-challenged.” And it’s no different from liberals’ perpetual characterization of Republican political figures as stupid, from Reagan to George W. Bush to Sarah Palin.

I’ll tell you what is rather silly; I don’t want to say “stupid.” It’s this repeated assertion that one’s political viewpoint is based on intelligence, when it is far more related to one’s worldview and disposition. For every brilliant, average or unintelligent liberal, I’ll show you a brilliant, average or unintelligent conservative. Ideology is not a function of IQ, and political allegiances and policy preferences are often unrelated to facts.

If you want an example of “stupid” — or at least intellectual negligence — consider the childish willingness on the part of so many intellectuals, on the left and the right, to deify candidate Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Then again, hasn’t it always been axiomatic that “intellectuals” lack common sense? In their minds, Jimmy Carter was going to make the ideal president.

What’s worse, many of them think he did.

Please save us from the intellectuals. (David Limbaugh)

AMEN!

Political Cartoon by Chuck Asay
Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez
Happy Black Friday ( until Al Sharpton calls it racist that is). Enjoy the stampede of the greedy. I wonder if any of them are liberals… 🙂

By Any Means Necessary

The most liberal court in the land has struck again. The Ninth Circus Court of Liberal Appeals has ruled that you’d don’t have to prove you’re a citizen to vote!

The very law they upheld and has been on the books for 6 years they tossed out the week before the election where liberals are going to get creamed.

Coincidence? Not with Liberals.

And this same circus is going to take up SB 1070 next week also.

Can you say the liberal fix is in!

And guess who’s helping them out, Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Anyone for revoking anything with her name on it?

The split decision by a three-judge panel determined that the requirement to show proof of citizenship — passed by voters in 2004 — is not consistent with the National Voter Registration Act.

Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, temporarily sitting by designation, and Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, with chief judge Alex Kozinski dissenting, said Prop. 200 creates an additional hurdle, while the national act is intended to reduce “state-imposed obstacles” to registration.

The court did uphold Arizona’s photo ID requirement. So all the Illegals need is their fake IDs to vote for Democrats. Gee, that makes me feel so much better!

A three-judge panel of the court said the proof-of- citizenship requirement conflicted with the intent of the federal law aiming to increase voter registration by streamlining the process with a single form and removing state- imposed obstacles to registration.

The federal law requires applicants to “attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury” without requiring documentary proof, the panel said.

“Proposition 200 creates an additional state hurdle to registration,” the judges said.

The law was challenged by voting rights and Hispanic advocacy groups.

The decision is “a warning to anyone who seeks to deter or prevent voter participation” that the Constitution “will protect our democratic process,” Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, a San Antonio-based group that argued the case, said in a statement.

So I guess if you want to intimidate voters you’d better be black and liberal so Eric Holder & Co will not prosecute you or else!!

To protect the integrity of the democratic process we have to protect the illegal voters if they want to vote for Democrats.

So a State law that “supersedes” and “goes beyond” Federal Law is struck down. Gee, that argument sounds familiar somehow? 😦

Perales (MALDEF Lawyer) compared Proposition 200 to the oft-called SB 1040, a controversial Arizona law that allows police to ask the immigration status of people stopped for other reasons, which critics call racial profiling.

“Basically, you have a state law superseding federal law,” she said of 1040. “Arizona is creating an independent scheme, whether it’s immigration or voter registration, in violation of known law.”(SA.com)

The dingbat liberals can’t even get their facts straight! It’s SB1070 you progressive liberal twit!!

“Once again, we have activist judges ignoring the rule of law and the voters, that is citizens, they apparently are ok with illegal votes or non-citizens voting. This absolutely flies in the face of common sense,” says Sen. Russell Pearce of Mesa the author of Proposition 200 in 2004.

“The Justice Department gave Proposition a thumbs up and found no conflict with the voting rights act.  I also had 7 court rulings, including a 9th Circuit Court all upholding the law just 3 years ago. Judge O’Connor has also violated the canons about political activity when she did a robo call in Nevada on the Proposition to merit select of Judges, apparently another example of her lack of trust and respect of We The People.

So now, in the age of Obama and Eric “Social Justice” Holder we just toss out or legal precedent and go with what works for our ideology now.

Gee, that make me feel so much better about the courts.

“So what is the message from these judges? If an illegal alien is trying to register to vote, it is okay to ask them if they are a citizen, just don’t make them prove it. You have got to be kidding!” says Sen. Pearce.

Danny Ortega, a Phoenix attorney who helped challenge Proposition 200 on behalf of the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund. “It will protect their right (the poor) to vote. That’s what this is all about.”

Where’s my Barf Bag!??

So do you think Eric Holder’s Social Justice Dept will use this against Arizona next week when they come after us again?

Oh, and On Dec. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear appeals against Arizona’s 2007 employer-sanctions law, which prohibits employers from knowingly hiring undocumented workers.

Employer sanctions was something the President himself has advocated for,at least in public when it suited him politically. Not so much now.

Do you think this was coincidence? 🙂

Don’t you feel better now? 🙂

So by the end of the year Illegal Aliens could have more rights than you do.

Why More?

Because, if you try to stop them from doing anything illegal that benefits the Progressive Liberal Agenda the courts and the Social Justice Police will be there to STOP YOU.

You evil, disenfranchising racist you! How dare you want them to follow the law.

Shame on you!

Go to the Back of the bus!! 🙂

Political Cartoon by Glenn McCoy

Putting the *Me* in Mea Culpa

Back in early 2009, President-elect Barack Obama was asked on “Meet the Press” how quickly he could create jobs. Oh, very fast, he said. He’d already consulted with a gaggle of governors, and “all of them have projects that are shovel-ready.” When Obama revealed the members of his energy team, he explained that they were part of his effort to get started on “shovel-ready projects all across the country.” When he unveiled his education secretary, he assured everyone that he was going to get started “helping states and local governments with shovel-ready projects.”

In interviews, job summits and press conferences, it was shovel-ready this, shovel-ready that. Search the White House website for the term “shovel-ready” and you’ll drown in press releases about all the shovels ready to shove shovel-ready projects into the 21st century, where no shovel is left behind.

Only now it turns out that the president was shoveling something all right when he was talking about shovel-ready jobs — a whole pile of steaming something. (Jonah Goldberg)

In the magazine article, Mr. Obama reflects on his presidency, admitting that he let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat,” realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” and perhaps should have “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” in the stimulus.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/obama-no-shovel-ready-jobs-krauthammer-pounces

“Well, that is quite an admission. You know, a year and a half and half a trillion dollars later he says these things that I talked about endlessly don’t exist (“shovel ready jobs”). It’s not actually surprising that he doesn’t know what a shovel ready project is. Having never worked in the private sector he wouldn’t be sure what a project is and there isn’t a lot of shoveling at Harvard Law School.” So I can understand that this was one of the greatest “Oops” in American history. And it’s going to be hard for a democrat when you show one tape against another. They’re goint to say, “So you supported a trillion dollars offered by a president who didn’t even know that this stuff that this stuff is not going to happen?”– Charles Krauthammer

And somehow now, as president, things are messy and they don’t always work as planned and people are mad at us,” Mr. Obama said. (New York Times)

DOH!
It’s not that Obama was lying when he said all that stuff. It’s just that he didn’t know what he was talking about. All it took was nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus money and 20-plus months of on-the-job training for him to discover that he was talking nonsense.
But does he really mean it?
Hell No. it’s just a cynical political ploy to garner sympathy and evoke fake pathos.
How do I know, well…

When the Republicans and the American people thump him, well that just means you’ll have to kiss his ass even more.

In an hour-long interview with the Times’s White House correspondent, Peter Baker, Mr. Obama predicted that his political rivals would either be chastened by falling short of their electoral goals (complete takeover of both House and Senate) or burdened with the new responsibility that comes from achieving them.

“It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible, either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them,” Mr. Obama said. “Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”

Essentially, it comes down to: Remember all the things I said repeatedly on the campaign trail and then as President, well, I guess I didn’t know what the hell I was talking about and I should have been more understanding of Republicans, so don’t vote my party out of office because we are totally incompetent and tone deaf. I’m sorry.

Where’s my barf bag?

“Given how much stuff was coming at us,” Obama explains, “we probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right. There is probably a perverse pride in my administration — and I take responsibility for this; this was blowing from the top — that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular. And I think anybody who’s occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can’t be neglecting of marketing and PR and public opinion.” (New York Times)

So that’s why you were on TV every 5 minutes during the Health care debate and had town halls and press conferences, meet and greets, and now backyard meetings and arena-sized multi-media events, because you weren’t doing enough PR.

Barf bag Alert!

This is an old progressive lament: Our product is perfect, we just didn’t sell it convincingly to the rubes.

I’m sorry you’re too stupid and unenlightened to understand how fantastic I am and how fantastic our Socialist Utopia is.

We don’t want to work with you Mr. President. WE WANT TO STOP YOU!

PERIOD!

But you’re too narcissistic to even see that!

The mea culpa that is more about ME than culpa. 🙂

“Historically, when you look at how America has evolved, typically we make progress on race relations in fits and starts,” President Obama said at a town hall event with young Americans.

The “casted” MTV special that is.

He then suggested that the recession has played a part in driving racial antagonism while he has been in office.

Yeah, Democrats and Liberals calling everyone who disagrees with them a racist at the drop of any hat has nothing to do with it! 🙂

Opposition to the “first black President” must be racist. But that has nothing to do with the rise in racial tensions.

“Often times misunderstandings and antagonisms surface most strongly when times are tough. And that’s not surprising,” Mr. Obama said, arguing that Americans are less worried when things are going well.

How would he know, it’s only gotten worse under his watch.

He added that anxiety over not being able to pay bills – or having lost a job or a home – sometimes “organizes itself around kind of a tribal attitude, and issues of race become more prominent.”

So is that why Democrats, especially Southern Democrats, were against freeing the slaves or Civil Rights or Women’s Sufferage?

No.

But it sounds good. It’s complete diversionary crap. But I sounds good.

If everyone was wonderful and we all lived in the Socialist Utopia that’s in his head there would be no strife.

Kumbuya!

“We’ve got a little bit of everybody in this country,” the president said, arguing that “our strength comes from unity, not division.”

So that’s why I’ve spent the last 2 years dividing people in to “rich” and “poor”, “black”, “white”, “latino” , “Main Street”, Wall Street”, Tea Partiers and Government Union Thugs, Socialists and Capitalists, haves and have nots, the insured and the uninsured, the legal and the illegal (sorry, undocumented).

I want to unite people behind dividing and conquering them.

Orwell would be proud of you my son.

As would your soul brother, Saul Alinsky.

But don’t worry, you’re just a racist if you disagree. 🙂

Veteran Democratic operative Pat Caddell is unloading on the White House, saying he’s had enough with the president whose “hypocrisy” on campaign finance “is just mind-blowing.”

President Obama has made a point while campaigning to call out conservative-leaning groups for hurting the integrity of elections by not voluntarily disclosing donors. Caddell says Obama has no room to talk.

“My problem with Obama started the day he blew up public financing of presidential campaigns,” Caddell said in an interview with The Daily Caller. “He’s the man whose done the most to destroy whatever integrity there was in campaign financing.”

Obama declined public funding of his presidential campaign in 2008.

His entire campaign, some $750 Billion dollars was funded by “private” donations. 🙂

People like Foreign socialist Billionaire and his moveon.org and other tentacles had nothing to do with it.

Caddell, who has worked for a number of presidential campaigns, including Joe Biden’s in 1988, said making outside money an election issue is a risky strategy for the Democrats. “You’re 21 days out from an election and this is what you’ve got? That’s it? Nothing about jobs or the economy?”

It won’t be pretty for his party, Caddell says. “Come the morning of November 2, they’re going to have a cold shower. It’s going to be an Arctic temperature.”

Caddell also took a swing at Obama’s inner circle.

“These are naive idiots who’ve come out of academia and have never done anything real in their lives, and they are actually in power,” he said. “These are the people we never let in the room when we had serious business to do. Now they’re running the country.”

And they will say or do anything to keep it.

And use anyone to keep as much of it as possible.

First Lady Michelle Obama reportedly violated Illinois election laws by encouraging voters to support President Obama at a polling place in Chicago Thursday morning.

Election laws in Illinois prohibit anyone from engaging in “any political discussion within any polling place,” or “within 100 feet of any polling place.”

The first lady was reportedly speaking with other voters in a polling place and urged them to keep President Obama’s agenda going.

“Technical violation, perhaps. But what are mere technical violations of voting laws to the Obama administration!” said Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, a conservative, non-partisan, public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption.

Illinois law has a broad-ban on any person engaging in political discussion within the polling place.

“Even if her conversations didn’t constitute electioneering, they almost certainly violated the broader Sec. 17-29 ban on engaging in ‘any political discussion within any polling place,’” said Charlie Spies, an election attorney with Clark Hill, PLC. (Drudge)

But don’t expect anyone on the Democrat side to care. Hell, they don’t care if you stand outside the polling place with truncheons and yell racial hatred as long as you’re black and a Democrat. So why would this bother them?
After all, it’s all about them. And him, Obama, specifically.
Obama likes to win, too, of course. But he is so ideological, so deeply marinated in leftism (he picked up the false accusation about the Chamber of Commerce, for example, from a left-wing website), that asking him to compromise with Republicans may well cause a system crash. Though he now acknowledges that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects,” he continues to see his presidency in such empyrean terms (and his opponents as so lacking in good faith) that compromise seems remote.–Mona Charen
Maybe it’s unfair for people to think Obama is just another tax-and-spend Democrat. After all, some tax-and-spend Democrats are actually competent at it.-Jonah Goldberg
Or maybe it’s not. After all, he puts the Me in Mea Culpa!
Political Cartoon by Jerry Holbert

How Green(e) is My Politics

Alvin Greene, a 13 year veteran of the military won 59% of the vote in the South Carolina democratic primary for the u.s. senate last week. Greene, despite having spent less than 2 thousand dollars on his campaign handily won the primary.

One would think that the Dems would be excited that a black guy with a very limited budget beat out a white guy with loads of campaign money and could be the first african american senator from the southern US  since reconstruction.

But people, including representative James Clyburn (D-SC), House Whip in Congress is demanding an investigation. He and other members of the Democratic party have asked Alvin Greene to pull out of the race.

Some also think he’s a plant by the Republicans. 🙂

“Alvin Greene is pretending to be an idiot,” Creighton (of far left Flamethrower website Firedoglake) writes, noting that Greene holds a college degree and worked as an intelligence specialist in the US military. “He is doing it because someone doesn’t want a strong populist democrat like Vic Rawl running against Jim DeMint in South Carolina for his seat in the United States Senate.”

Isn’t politics just fun. 🙂

“There were some real shenanigans going on in the South Carolina primary,” Clyburn said on the Bill Press radio show, according to The Hill. “I don’t know if [Greene] was a Republican plant; he was someone’s plant.” Clyburn is particularly suspicious that Greene could come up with the $10,400 needed to register for the race despite being unemployed.

A spokesman for Sen. Jim DeMint, Greene’s opponent in the general election, said the charge that the Democratic nominee is a Republican plant is “ridiculous.”
Whomever the Democrats nominated was not likely to win against the very popular DeMint anyhow.

Super leftist Ezra Klein of the Washington Post though, put it this way: There’s been a lot of talk about what sort of trickery and skullduggery and inanity could’ve produced Alvin Greene’s win in South Carolina. But after reading all of it, I’m coming down on the side of Dave Weigel: Maybe the guy just, you know, won.

So why all the outrage? All the conspiracy theories?

Could it be they want to create a crisis, so they can exploit it?

Get the sleepy, apathetic, South Carolina Democrats whipped up?

They want to know where he got the $10,400 to be put on the ballot.

They are more obsessed with this than the $4 Trillion in worthless spending they’ve already done nationally.

It’s like focusing on 1 tree while the whole forest burns down!

But they miss the fact that 100,000 people voted for this guy. Regardless of whether he was “a plant” and “someone” seeded him the money, he still got the votes.

Oh, right, because this was an open primary it was a Republican hit-job… 😦

When asked by NBC’s David Gregory on Sunday if Greene’s election was legitimate, senior White House adviser David Axelrod said, “It doesn’t appear so to me. It was a mysterious deal.”

Axelrod said: “The whole thing is odd. I don’t really know how to explain it and I don’t think anybody else does either. … How [Greene] won the primary is a big mystery, and until you resolve that I don’t think he can claim to be a strong, credible candidate.”

But they are still stuck with an unemployed, no experience candidate with a pending felony trial.

I don’t know about you, but that sounds like the perfect Democrat to me. 🙂

So what is really the troubling factor here is the Democrats attitude that the guy they put up, a former legislator named Vic Rawl, who spend virtually no money either but had the blessing of the establishment,didn’t win so it must be a trick.

The voting machines were rigged, they say. “Hanging Chads” anyone?

Some want the primary results thrown out.

They didn’t get their man.

That’s the really troubling part.

And these are the same Democrats who will, even after 10 years, go ranting off into left field about how the Republicans stole the election in 2000 from Al Gore.

They didn’t get their man.

Does this sound like a free and fair, democratic election ethic or a party apparatchik put-up job?

The Party wants whom the party wants. And the people are just sheep who are supposed to vote the way the party wants them too and if they don’t it must therefore be FRAUD! 🙂

And if the party doesn’t get what it wants it will simply erase it and start over again until you do what the party wants.

Very scary.

But does it sound familiar?

Health Care reform anyone? Bailouts? TARP? Stimulus? Cap and Trade!

The majority of Americans were vehemently against the Health Care bill, but the Democrats wanted their Holy Grail no matter what and they got what they wanted by any means necessary.

And now it’s Energy.

Cap and Trade, which stalled out for lack of support is now re-energized by the Oil Spill.

“The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now,” he said. “I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy – because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.” –President Obama, last night.

Never waste a Crisis!

Overly Expensive, inefficient, but politically correct,Green Tech or Bust.

One problem, the nation, and the world run on Oil.

So they need to make Oil unattractive, both politically and economically.

Enter Cap and Trade.

Mind you, the rest of the world is going to do anything, but take advantage of the weak, stupid Americans.

And 10’s of thousands of good jobs will evaporate.

Earlier this month, the president ordered a six month ban on exploratory deepwater drilling – a move some experts predict will pour salt into the wounds of the already injured region.

The moratorium could lead to massive job losses in Louisiana, which relies on drilling to support its economy, Louisiana State University Economist James Richardson said.

“The moratorium could be more devastating than the leak, because more people are employed by the oil industry than the fishing industry,” he said.

The moratorium could cost the state more than 20,000 jobs by the end of the year, according to the Louisiana Department of Economic Development. The Department estimates for every one employee working on a rig, nine employees onshore are working to support that rig.

“During one of the most challenging economic periods in decades, the last thing we need is to enact public policies that will certainly destroy thousands of existing jobs while preventing the creation of thousands more,” Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal said in a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Broken down by industry, the Louisiana Department of Economic Development estimates fishing and tourism contributes $10 billion to the Louisiana economy, while energy contributes $65 billion.

Following the moratorium, Anadarko Petroleum announced its intention to move three rigs out of the Gulf.

And when the taxes from this debacle cripple the country anyone for 20% unemployment??

The price of gas will skyrocket.

But candidate Obama was only too happy about that previously

January 2008:

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket . . . because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas, you name it . . . Whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money, and they will pass that [cost] on to consumers.’’

In the same interview, Obama suggested that his energy policy would require the ruin of the coal industry. “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant, they can,’’ he told the Chronicle. “It’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.’’

So the Oil Spill is the perfect political opportunity to get what they want because they want it.

The fact that the people are again, against it, is not relevant.

They want what they want.

So the Democrats in South Carolina want to invalidate a valid election because they didn’t get what they wanted. They complain to this day about the 2000 election because they didn’t get what they wanted. And then the Health Care Debate  went on for over a year until they bum-rushed it through in the most partisan vote in the history of the country.

Now they want your energy.

Your Car.

Your AC.

Your everything that is manufactured and shipped that will be more costly.

And all the job losses for this?

Like they care.

They want what they want when they want it.

Period.

And no one is going to take their toys away from them!

Take VAT America!

Before deciding what revenue options are best for dealing with the deficit and the economy, Obama said in an interview with CNBC, “I want to get a better picture of what our options are.”

For days, White House spokesmen have said the president has not proposed and is not considering a VAT.

“I think I directly answered this the other day by saying that it wasn’t something that the president had under consideration,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters shortly before Obama spoke with CNBC.

After the interview, White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki said nothing has changed and the White House is “not considering” a VAT. (yahoo)

Translation: it’s coming, we just haven’t figured out what color lipstick to put on this pig.

He said his first priority “is to figure out how can we reduce wasteful spending so that, you know, we have a baseline of the core services that we need and the government should provide. And then we decide how do we pay for that.”

Reduce Wasteful Spending??

REDUCE WASTEFUL SPENDING??!!!!

$%&*^$%#@$^*%#!@!@#^!!!!!!!

Now juxtapose this comment against: Health Care, Bailiouts, GM, Chrysler, AIG, Cap & Trade, Global Warming,Wall Street Demonization and Financial Reform and you just have to conclude they are either the most aethical people who just say whatever the hell they want to at that moment and expect you to believe it, or that they believe wholeheartedly that you really are mind numbingly stupid!

Ask almost anyone — economists, politicians, entrepreneurs, average Americans — and they’ll tell you a value-added tax is a bad idea. So why does the White House continue to consider it?

After hearing VAT opponents smeared as anti-government radicals and worse, we decided to poll Americans on the issue. What our IBD/TIPP poll found was surprising: Not only is the VAT unpopular, but it’s unpopular across the board, regardless of political affiliation.

Overall, Americans oppose a VAT by 73% to 22%. Republicans, as might be expected, feel the strongest: 83% against, 14% for. But even Democrats oppose it 65% to 27%. Independents stand somewhere in between (see chart).

We’re not surprised. A VAT would be a huge new tax on all levels of income, including the poor and the middle class. That, even as Americans have made it clear in poll after poll that they feel overtaxed — and that government spending is the problem.

And they’re right. To eliminate expected deficits of $12 trillion over the next 10 years, the VAT would have to be enormous.

It’s been estimated that a 5% VAT would generate $250 billion in annual revenues. So to get rid of the $1 trillion annual deficits expected through 2020 would require a value-added tax of 20%. And that’s in addition to all the taxes we already pay at every level of government. Such a tax burden would kill innovation, jobs and economic growth. Our economy would be more like those of the stagnant, debt-ridden European Union, where the VAT averages close to 20%.

A Chamber of Commerce study suggests that spending in countries with a VAT grows 45% faster than in non-VAT countries. A VAT, it seems, emboldens money-drunk politicians to spend even more on expanding the welfare state.

That’s why, as unpopular as it is, Democratic politicians in the White House and Congress can’t quite let go of the idea.(IBD)

The idea of cutting spending is not even a wisp of an after-thought with these guys.

It’s about how do we spend even more.

Which means we have to raise money money to cover it.

And does absolutely nothing for the debt and deficit we already have.

But damn it feels good to spend like there’s no tomorrow.

And for a Government that wants to take over everything and everybody, that’s a lot of money.

But they haven’t come up with the used car salesman pitch yet.

And most likely, the demon to polarize it with.

So what if it’s unpopular even with Democrats.

It’s not like they really care what anyone things outside of the Capital area.

It’s not hard to figure out why. According to the American Institute for Economic Research, federal tax revenues in 2009 shriveled by $400 billion from the year before to the lowest level of taxes as a share of GDP — 15% — since 1950.

That’s a huge revenue hole, and it comes at a time when total federal spending through 2020 is expected to surge nearly 70% to $45 trillion. To fill the hole, Washington wants more of your money.

And considering Medicare projection of it’s first 25 years were off by 900% that makes Health Care a country buster in the next generation.

So unless we all want to work for our Feudal Lord Democrat and pay more in taxes than you earn regardless of income level,  the drug addicts in Washington have to go the Spending Patch and their has to be a Voter/Taxpayer Intervention  and we need to ween them and us off dependency and return to self-reliance and fiscally sound policies.

OR ELSE!