The Same Old Song and Dance



HRH JoanWalsh

 Thank you, Salon, for yet another fine example of the total cluelessness on the left. Not to pick on you exclusively, but I am sick of hearing the same line of BS by progressive twits. Their ignorance of fact is truly astounding, and their obsession with party politics is truly nauseating.  No matter how much of a burden is placed on the taxpayer, every ignorant decision out of Washington is broken down and analyzed as a political victory or defeat.

I feel I can speak for a vast majority of us when I say am sick and tired of the progressive spin on this. Their constant claim that Bush Tax Cuts had no positive effects are absolutely ridiculous.

For starters, the unemployment rate between 2001 and 2006 was between 4% and 6 %.  Even when the government-created and inflated housing bubble burst, and the disastrous government-assisted sub-prime mortgage scam brought down the economy, the unemployment rate never rose about 7.2%.  More people working means more taxes paid.

As far as tax rates and federal revenue, simply examine the historical data.  It clearly shows that more taxes were collected under Bush (2001 to 2008) than under Clinton (1993 to 2000).  Feel free to draw whatever conclusion you wish concerning tax rates and revenue.

Please try to understand this simple fact, Ms Walsh, before uttering another asinine syllable: The failure to raise tax rates does not create debt.  Only spending more than you have can accomplish that feat.

All who manage household budgets know this. Only in Washington can you find people who ignore this concept. These people are called Progressive, or Liberal, Democrats, and they all seem to share the bizarre belief that people have no right to keep what they earn.

Washington is very, very good at spending more than they have.  They have created a procedure that allows them to ignore the limits on the federal credit card.  It's called raising the debt ceiling, and they give themselves a credit line increase each and every year they exceed the previous limit.



These Democrats have redefined the "American Dream" and it now states that, although America is the land of opportunity and that anyone in this country can be successful, the Democrats reserve the right to determine exactly how successful you are allowed to be.

Today they have determined that $249,999.99 is the limit of one's success.  I wonder what that limit will be in the future.

Dickless Golfer to Tee it Up

There is a history of men trying to compete against women.  Admit it - we've all wondered about some of those Russian or East German Olympians over the years.  As far back as 1936, the Olympic Committee has put in place a procedure for determining the gender of women athletes. Any controversies have been resolved through chromosome testing and medical examination.

Now Linda Lawless has been given the right to compete against the ladies of the LPGA.  No longer will gender be based on chromosome makeup, but on the gender a person believes themselves to be.  The only response I can muster is....WTF?

The AP article refers to "...a lawsuit filed by a California woman who had her sex changed...." which is complete and total horseshit. This is not a woman. What we have here is a confused individual who has voluntarily mutilated himself.  He is genetically and physiologically a male who has surgically altered his external genitalia in order to convince his disturbed psyche that he is a female.

Looking back, all was good until Linda won a Women's Long Drive Competition in 2008.  Being a surgically-altered male, Linda was barred from competing next year, at which point he sued on the grounds that the event organizers were discriminating against him from entering the women's competition on the basis of his sex.  Did I mention that Linda is a man?  Dickless, yes, but technically a man.

Genetically speaking, human gender is determined at conception by the chromosome makeup, Y-Y being female, and X-Y being male. Just because you've cut off your junk doesn't "make" you a woman. It just means that now you're a surgically deformed and psychologically disturbed man.

There are some who claim to be women "trapped" in a man's body, and visa versa, but that's just so much horseshit.  What should be recognized as a psychological disorder now occupies a good deal of the social progressive's fight for Utopia.

Should a man, who lost his shmeckel in an unfortunate industrial accident (?) be forced to call himself a woman?  And there are those who naturally possess both sets of genitalia.  Is this not an entirely separate catagory?  No, the condition of being dickless is more a state of mind than anything else, especially a legal classification.

That being said, this may possibly be the goofiest looking sonofabitch to ever tee it up on either tour.  His face looks like my farts smell.  Matter of fact, he looks like he just smelled a fart - probably one of his own, and probably from his hand crafted man-vagina.  Being surgically crafted from his unwanted penis, what would you call the thing now?  A Vagenis?  A Peniga?  I would rather not know.

This could only happen in California.  What a totally messed up state - how do people live there?  The legal citizens, I mean...

The TSA: A Warm and Fuzzy Feeling

TSA-Approved
Airline Attire

So it's taken this, another, more aggressive stance by the Transportation Security Administration to raise the ire of airline passengers.  And all under the false pretense of providing an increased measure of safety.  When you consider that the fantastic experience that flying actually is, I'm surprised people have ever stopped complaining about the joke that is airport security.

All the gropes and scans do not make flying one bit "safer", only more aggravating and expensive. I am amazed how so many people accept this massive deception, and how easily they are willing to subject themselves to this further invasion of privacy.

These stringent new procedures, the body scans and feeling up Grandma, may possibly weed the novice Jihadist who is just ignorant enough to fashion a third testicle out of C-4 and duct tape it to his scrotum.

The TSA agents are not the "trained security professionals" they are painted to be.  The majority are half-witted buffoons who gladly accept the lifetime security of a government job after being fired or laid off as mall cops, security guards, night watchmen, or just a Barney Fife who has obviously failed every other non-government career attempt.

After leaving the ticket counter, the first trial of the security gauntlet is the Ticket Checker.  Usually found at the end of the first maze of velvet ropes, this guy's job is to catch the potential terrorist slipping up by presenting a photo ID with a different name than found on his ticket. Didn't the lady at the ticket counter just do that?

Passing this initial check leads you to the second velvet rope maze, designed to line everyone up for the X-ray Bucket Shuffle.  You know the drill:  place your shoes in a plastic bucket, in the hopes of finding that second pair of explosive footwear.  I know it's been 9 years since the last one showed up, but you would be crazy to think those Al-Qaeda boys haven't at least slapped together a few extra pairs by now.

Also remove your belt, your watch, your glasses, your coins, your jewelry, and place that in another bucket.  Remove your laptop from its case and place it in another bucket.  If you're lucky enough to fly during the cold months, put your coat, gloves and hat in yet another bucket.

After pushing all your buckets into the x-ray viewer, so that another member of the TSA elite secutiry squad can attempt to identify the contents of your carry-on items via the x-ray scan, you now try to pass through the metal detector.  Beep.  Oops, I forgot my wedding ring.  Sorry, I'll try again.  Beep.  Oops, two pennies in my other pocket.  Sorry, I'll try again. Beep. Oops, did I forget to mention the metal plate in my head?

As far as the x-ray scan of my shoes, jacket, I assume the guy can recognize what he is looking at, unless your bag is anything like my wife's purse.  But I'm fairly certain that, if they can make out the words "Light Here" on anything, you are a shoe-in for the "additional screening" area.

Perhaps they will one day find the cartoon bomb they're looking for (the black sphere with fuse on top and the word "BOMB" stenciled in big white letters on the side).  Just a guess on my part, but don't you think explosive devices have developed beyond these bulky, light-and-hurl devices?  Especially considering the quasi-sophistication of last Christmas and the Panty Bomber's smoldering underwear.

The list of forbidden liquids, gels, and creams is long, and are only allowed on board if carried in several small bottles.  Size indeed matters, even if the contents do not.  TSA agents must indeed receive very special training to visually ascertain the volatility of a compound. If that doesn't make you feel safer, I don't know what would.

I recall from my school years that five small bottles of explosive chemicals added together still equals one large bottle of explosive chemicals. The terrorist will have to mix all his small bottles together if he wants to blow up something as large as an airplane.  How inconvenient for them.  I'm sure some liberal rights group will file a discrimination suit over this.

Neither cigarette lighters (unless they don't work) nor more than three books of matches are allowed. And just forget about trying to slip the two-inch fingernail clipper/nail file combo past TSA's vigilant watch, but scissors are welcomed if 4-inches or shorter.  A Phillips head screwdriver is perfectly fine, provided it's not longer than 7 inches and not in your pocket.

I feel safer already, because the tip of the screwdriver can be sterilized with the matches before being plunged into the temple of the co-pilot, and we all know of the infectious nature of puncture wounds.

For the final test of one's airplane worthiness, it's time to choose - would you prefer the exposure to small doses of radiation, or the "handful of crotch" technique? These are the most recent additions to the TSA's impenetrable safety net.

The zeal with which these "highly trained" (they know how to turn on the machine) "security professionals" (they get paid) display can only come with the excitement and expectation of preventing the next in-flight disaster.

Either that, or getting their name in the company newsletter by being the first TSA agent in history to actually prevent an in-flight disaster.  Since 2001, the boys in the TSA are still batting 0.000, and with the new pat-down regulations, you can tell the competition is becoming more intense.

After the grueling security sweep, you are now in the "secured area" from which you cannot exit without facing the entire ordeal again.  Finding your gate of departure (always the one furthest away), it is here where you are allowed the experience of an hour-long wait in crowded, noisy, uncomfortable surroundings.

Checking the schedule, you discover your flight is facing a "slight delay" (perhaps due to the weather or the "enhanced security" at the other end).  While you seek solstice in the wonderful airport bar and their $5 lukewarm beer, you remind yourself how glad you are that you rushed to arrive an hour early

Finally your plane arrives, or at least you assume it to be here, since everyone leaps to their feet in order to be first in line to board.  Seeing the haggard faces of the departing passengers should remind you of the ordeal you will soon face, but you board the crowded flight anyway.

As you move towards your seat, you once again hope there might actually be empty space in the overhead to stow your carefully screened carry-on luggage.  But, alas, the "experienced" travelers have taken up all available overhead space with their two-wheeled steamer trunks.

This means that your laptop must now be checked, which the flight attendant hurriedly reminds you of.  In the back of your mind, you ponder the important data stored on your laptop, the last time it was backed up, and its impending destruction at the hands of these oh-so-careful suitcase jugglers.

After a slight delay while everyone waits on that one guy who is always late (enhanced security, no doubt) you get the obligatory seat belt, aisle lighting, and monkey-hat oxygen mask instructional presentation, as well as the stern warning about lighting one up in the toilet.

Of course, if you wanted to disable the smoke alarm, you could carry enough tools on the plane to get the job done - provided none exceed 7 inches in length.  And some find it comforting to know that, even though your flight path will not cross any known body of water, your seat cushion can be used as a flotation device.

You are finally ready to take off, wanting only to recline your seat, check out that new Sky Mall catalog, and get comfortable.  But comfort is a relative term, and the next hour and a quarter of your life is spent being coughed and sneezed upon by the large sweaty gentleman seated next to you, obviously suffering from some terminal and contagious respiratory ailment.

Besides sharing his germs with you, this guy should have be sharing half of your ticket, since his corpulent frame occupies half of your seat as well as his own. And who knew the person in the window seat has some type of bladder problem or bowel syndrome, causing the need for seven trips to the toilet on an hour flight? Again, there's always that $5 lukewarm beer (exact change only, please) to make that hour and a quarter flight to seem less like an eternity.  Somehow, scotch seems more appropriate.

And before you know it, the pilot's garbled voice comes over the  begin your final decent, knowing it will soon be time to fight your way off the plane behind the multitude of rude "its all about me" passengers, who can't even wait for the plane to stop before they bolt up and dive into the overhead storage to retrieve their precious cargo.

After retrieving your laptop, you arrive at the baggage claim area, where it is only when the carousel stops do you discover your suitcase didn't make the flight. Well, at least when they do find it, it is delivered to your hotel at no additional charge, other than the fee you already paid for your checked baggage. And there is usually a drug store nearby that will sell you everything you need that evening, which is why you so carefully packed it for your trip that morning.

Finding the car rental counter, you accept the bright green sub-compact, since they messed up your reservation and you don't feel like fighting anymore.  You finally arrive at your hotel, magically whisked to your destination a mere 5 grueling hours from when you left your house.

And all of this for the "convenience" of not having to drive the 4 hours from Houston to Dallas.  Am I missing something here?

Global Warming and the Scourge of CO2

In honor of shriveled prick Harry Reid's reelection, and his commitment to address a Climate Bill during the lame duck session, I think I'll touch on the subject of Cap and Trade:

There are pollution laws in effect that are silly and unenforceable, or that can be 'bypassed' with a check to the right person. Fines for corporate violators are incredibly insignificant, and it is cheaper to pay the fine than to fix the problem. Put the teeth back into our regulations. But taxing anything carbon (Obama's Cap'n Trade, for example) is an insult to our intelligence.

In case you don't understand the whole Cap'n Trade scam, here's a simplified explanation: Every company in America must purchase "credits", except for certain ones that have the government's favor, who get their "credits" for free. Under government license, and a share of the cost (not a tax), a market is set up so that companies can buy, sell, and trade these "credits", depending on the level of toxic crap they wish to spew into the environment. The exchange collects a nominal fee for each transaction. But don't worry - this cost won't hurt the companies, because the cost for these expensive little "credits" is passed along to the consumer, buried in the cost of their product. Whew! Didn't want to drive another company overseas, eh, Mr O?

First, the "Cap": The market is only allowed to sell enough "credits" to equal the established pollution levels, designed to stop any increase in pollution. In the year 2035, the amount of "credits" will be reduced, which means less filth being spewed before they must pay fines, and the immediate threat from global warming will begin to be addressed in 25 years. I'm sure those polar bears can sit out another 25 years on that sad little iceberg, even though it looked pretty small in those pictures.

However, companies may wish to use "offsets" as an additional way to reduce CO2 and address global warming. The government has a range of "offsets" to choose from. A company can plant a tree in front of its building, for example. You see, CO2 is bad, and since trees eat CO2, global warming is reduced. The more trees, the more "offsets" they can earn, and they can either sell their unused "credits" for profit, or simply spew more filth than before without getting fined.

Now, the "Trade": One day, Company A pollutes at a rate greater than its share of "credits". Company B, who polluted a bit less that day, has some unused "credits" for sale. They call the Exchange, and the transaction is complete. Company A is happy, for it didn't have to stop spewing its filth, Company B is happy, because it recovered the cost of the credits (remember, these are paid for by the increase in product prices), and the Exchange profits from the buying and selling of "credits" is happy because, rain or shine, it makes money on every transaction. Only the poor consumer (taxpayer) is unhappy, because he ultimately shoulders the cost.

And Mother Nature smiles, because somehow, between all the trading of "credits," global warming magically went away. Obama taxed - excuse me - "credited" it away. Would it not be the greatest of coincidences (the most inconvenient of truths) in history if our very own Albert Gore, Nobel Prize winning, Global Warming fright-monger-in-chief, had already positioned himself to operate this Carbon Exchange? Amazing, isn't it? America is truly the land of opportunity.

So It's Come To This?

I do not call myself a Republican, or at least not what the Republican party has warped into over the last decade (certainly not a "Bush Republican"), but I'm not ready to identify myself as a member of the Tea Party. I'm in conservative limbo, somewhere in between.  I am all for big business and small government, firearms and freedom of speech, but I cannot understand leaving people to starve and freeze under a bridge somewhere. However, if someone were to call me a liberal, I would feel obligated to punch them in the throat.

 I'll be the first to admit that there is a lot more than "just a bit of hypocrisy" in politics. But I can only laugh at the naivete of anyone who claims one political party is "the good one" while the other is "all bad." And to claim the right has the majority of "moral derelicts" only accentuates the level of denial on the left. There are only two types of career politicians: bad and worse.

There are, in my opinion, those who truly wish to make a difference and change the way things are. At least until they are corrupted by their more experienced peers. Oh, and don't think I'm talking about Mr. Hope'n'Change himself - I believed he was a liar from day one, and he has proved me right for the last two years.

It is rather funny how you defend the "moral values" of the liberals, while I see absolutely none, and you claim their "guilt" makes all their crimes acceptable. On the other hand, I defend the moral values of conservatives, while you claim they are totally void of any guilt or remorse. Apparently, no matter how "above all that" you and I consider ourselves, we both seem a bit blinded by our personal beliefs. I suppose this is just how things are.

Why is it any different to attack people of a different race than to attack people of a different ideology? I obviously cannot say "Obama sure is one stupid nigger" without being rightfully branded as a racist. But, strangely enough, I cannot say "Obama sure is one stupid liberal" without being branded as a racist, either.

On the other hand, if a devout liberal were to say "Rush Limbaugh is an ignorant fat fuck Republican piece of shit, and he and all who listen to him should crawl off somewhere and die," he would be cheered by liberals everywhere. The justification for the personal attack is simply because he dares disagree with the so-called moral superiority of liberal views. Doesn't this bother you at all? What does the magnificent sense of liberal morality say to you about all this? Seems a bit judgemental to me, but only a person of falsely assumed moral superiority (ie: a liberal) would be comfortable taking that position.

What is amazing is this: watch an offensive television program, you change the channel. If you hear an offensive radio broadcast, you change the station. Unless you're a liberal, in which case all that found to be offensive is attacked, while demands are made for both the immediate removal of the offensive material and for apologies by the responsible parties. Of course, since liberals are only concerned with (their own concept of) the well-being of society, these are not seen for the extreme acts of censorship that they are.  It appears that, in the Bizzaro world of liberal tolerance, the one thing that will not be tolerated is intolerance.  Conform and submit - there are simply no other choices allowed in Obama Land.

For the record, Rush is not "chairman of the Republican Party", nor is Newt the official GOP morality spokesman. But whose business is it, anyway, as to who Rush decides to marry, or how old she is?  At least he is married to a woman. And Newt is a knucklehead, and a career politician. I do not subscribe to many of this man's beliefs, but he has his moments. There's dirt to be uncovered with anyone's career. And, although the GOP has it's fair share of "do as I say, not as I do" arsewipes, there are as many if not more on the other side of the aisle.

I suppose the first rule of politics is Don't Get Caught. Let's just say that anyone who believes what any politician promises, especially near election time, then I have some mortgage-backed securities I would love to show them. It is hard to determine what either party actually stands for anymore, for everything we know comes from character attacks against each other. We are left to assume that our guy is the "good guy", and could never be guilty of whatever evil they attribute to that other guy.

For the most part, most are too ignorant to find out for ourselves, or too lazy to put out the effort required, so they will just have to accept what the media gives them, while pretending that the MSM is not horribly slanted to the left.  We are our own worst enemy, and although this certainly needs to change, I can understand how we let it happen. But what really get my drawers in a wad is the blatant double standard shown to the right by the media and the left, which is nothing but political gamesmenship.  There is no neutrality shown, yet for all their hard-left slant, the hypocrisy shown attacking FoxNews as "biased" is astounding.

When a Republican gets caught in some "impropriety", he is put through the media wringer. His character and his family are viciously attacked. Every news outlet carries the tale of his transgression, that it is indisputable evidence that he is indeed in league with Satan himself, and such a despicable act is yet another sad reflection of the inherent evil that runs rampant through the Republican party. All the public apologies in the world will not save him from the liberal media's rage, with the eventual result being his resignation. Not that anyone should feel badly, since he more than likely has a handsome pension at our expense, and will retire to a life of luxury anyway.

But when we discover a Democrat guilty of a similar act, the left wing media immediately gives him a free pass, if they even bother to touch on the story at all, claiming it was an honest mistake since, after all, he was only working to better the lives of poor widows and orphans. Sure, the mouthpieces on the right will blast away, as usual, but there are so few conservative media outlets that they become easy targest for attacks from the liberal left. Much easier to discredit the source than to disprove the allegation.

Be honest and ask yourself: what happens when a Democrat gets caught? In today's Democratic party, getting caught and saying "I'm sorry" seems to be the best way to advance one's career. Committing and surviving a scandal is sort of like a merit badge to these guys.

From where I sit, I feel your comments on congressional scandal seem to concentrate on sex. I could care less who is screwing who, as none of that affects me in any way whatsoever. What I cannot stand are the financial improprieties, which seem to be far more prevalent than all the sexual escapades. These are what affect me and the other taxpayers of this country. Bribes, kickbacks, contributions, fraud, and outright theft are the foundation of the existing Democratic AND Republican parties - they know it, and they are beginning to know that we know it, you know?

Amnesty will Boost US Economy?

I'm sorry, but exactly how will granting amnesty to roughly 15 million illegal immigrants boost our economy again?

Will there be a huge increase in federal tax returns from migratory farm workers?  Will citizenship force an increase in wages, and in effect put more money into circulation?  As long as the United States remains the world's only country that rewards criminal behavior with citizenship, there will never be a shortage of sub-minimum wage labor.

What if amnesty simply results in 15 million new unemployment claims, filed by new citizens being priced out of work by the next wave of cheap labor?  These new citizens could now file for benefits once unobtainable.  Is this a great country or what?

Will they all buy houses, pay property and school taxes, and partially repay their years of freeloading on taxpayers?  Will these new citizens spend their meager earnings on health insurance, pay their own medical expenses, and no longer use free emergency room care?

Will our newest citizens boost our economy by no longer sending money back to Mexico each year?  Remittances sent to Mexico ($16.5 billion last year) from their exported labor force is a huge item in the Mexican federal budget, and is predicted to exceed revenue from Pemex, currently Mexico's primary source of revenue, by 2011.

Unless we secure the border, by force if required, there can be no amnesty.  But I can understand why the Democrats are all about amnesty.  It is no longer acceptable to use the term "illegal aliens".  The New Liberal Dictionary now defines this group as "Undocumented Democrats".

Blanket amnesty is not the answer.  Reagan did it backwards in 1986, giving amnesty to 3 million illegals, promising to secure the border.  What a huge mistake.  The border was not and is still not secure, and we now have another 15 - 20 million illegals to deal with.  Give these people amnesty, and we can look forward to 4o million more within 10 years.  That should boost the hell out of our economy.

Hypocrisy of Calderon

Mexican President Felipe Calderon was invited by Obama to come and address a joint session of Congress.  Here, in an ultimate act of hypocrisy, he chastised America for desiring respect of its sovereignty.

Why do you think Calderon so interested in an open border with the US? Because the money sent by Mexico's exported labor force, or remittances, is the primary source of revenue for Mexico.

Mexico has no entitlement programs for its poor, its sick, its unemployed. And why should they? It is horribly expensive, a massive drain on a country's economy, and is guaranteed to become larger over time.

 Actually, Mexico has a plan, which involves sending them to the US. That's it. Here they are rewarded for breaking immigration law with medical care, food, employment, housing, education, and, if the liberals have their way, citizenship. The liberals cry "that's exactly why we need immigration reform now", which is code for "Borders? We don't need no stinking borders."

Funny, but I don't see any of the protesters offering to house, feed, and clothe these people. From where I sit, I see nothing but a bunch of whiny liberal hypocrites, pretending to care while hoping a family of Hispanics won't move in next door and possibly lower their suburban property values.

Obama wants nothing to do with these people either. Like most politicians, he lives the millionaire's life high on top of the hill, isolated from the problems of the common man, pretending to give a Tinker's damn.

He does, however, want their votes, and to win them he only needs to somehow grant amnesty to these 15 million "undocumented Democrats", giving them access to the government largess. Apparently there's nothing more American, or hopey-changey, than a crooked politician buying votes.

Wasn't Reagan's amnesty for 3 million in 1986 good enough? What a mistake. The message this decision sent to Mexico was answered by 20 million more illegals. It is hard to make a convincing argument against illegal entry into our country by rewarding these criminals, which is why they keep coming.  Break the law, get a prize!  Enter as often as you like - a winner every time you play!

I hear about poor families, suffering because they cannot feed their ten children. But what did they expect, having little or no income? When they realized they didn't have the means to support the first five or six, why did they continue to bring more starving children into a cruel world?  Muy estupido!

Some feel pity for these poor folks, with all the starving children. It is indeed sad, although apparently not sad enough for Mexico to care about them. But what makes everyone think that America can support every person on the planet?

Who said that the desire for a secure border is an attack on immigration?  We allow a million people a year to legally immigrate and assimilate into our society.  The fact that we pride ourselves as being a nation of law.  Yet by not enforcing our own laws, we only invite our "uninvited guests" to show the same disregard for our legal system as our leaders do.

Eric Holder - Ass Clown

The whole idea of a lawsuit over SB1070 is a ridiculous move by the feds, as this new law does nothing to challenge the existing federal laws or render them un-enforceable. Enforce the existing immigration laws, and the other states won't have to take matters into their own hands. And that's in all 57 states, by the way.

One way or another, we are determined to stop the flood of illegal immigrants into this country. Obama's recent boneheaded speech, basically grouping legal and illegal immigrants together, merely showed the ignorance of a man who can only read a teleprompter.

Our immigration laws are not broken, it is merely designed to limit the number of people allowed to assimilate into American society. What is broken is the enforcement arm of the law, as no law can stand without being enforced. The days of the "Honor System" are long gone, and the criminals can't be expected to police themselves.

But the Crapweasel-in-Charge thinks he can use the issue to gain some political advantage, so its the same progressive song and dance we've heard for decades. "We'll secure the border after we've rewarded all the criminals with citizenship and voter ID's," claims Obama. Is anyone in this country really stupid enough to believe this garbage? If so, I have some vacation property in Mexico I would like to sell them...

Tell Us Exactly What's "Broken", Mr. Obama?

Could it be that Obama will eventually have to file suit against every state in the union - all 57 of them - to force his goal of amnesty upon us?

The more states that follow Arizona's lead means more pressure for Obama to pull his pointy head out, look around, and actually listen to them.

Seven out of 10 people in this country support Arizona's new law, yet Obama will have none of this. The lives of both American citizens and the exploited illegal work force are nothing but political tools to this man.

I am disgusted every time Obama looks down his nose at us and claims the "immigration system" is broken. It seems to work fine for a million people every year that come into this country legally - what exactly is "broken", Mr. President?

True, Obama is our president, elected by a majority of voters (52.9%, in fact) in 2008. There were two major factors in his victory - a huge anti-Bush sentiment, and a successful campaign of lies and deception.

After nearly two years, America has had a chance to see the true character, or lack thereof, of the person they placed their "hope for change" in.   If this inexperienced, unqualified amateur tries to sell his snake oil to America again in 2012, we should see a much different outcome.

SB1070 - Protest Platform for Idiots

With Arizona's passage of it's immigration law, the resulting attack from all sides has been nothing less than intense and nothing short of idiotic.  Forget that 70% of the residents approve of this effort.  A small percentage of pinheads from around the country, although removed from having to deal directly with the consequences of illegal immigration, have wrongly condemned this bill.

Not directly exposed does not mean not directly effected.  While not in immediate danger of being kidnapped or murdered, we all share the cost of providing benefits for those who ignore our border laws.

Look at the state of California, a shining example of liberal douche-baggery, with its cities bankrupt, overrun with illegal immigrants, yet they comically denounce Arizona for attempting to avoid California's death spiral.

Of course you would expect Hispanic groups advocating amnesty to oppose this bill.  Their goal is to throw all borders wide open, with some more idiotic than others who believe California and the southern US rightfully belongs to Mexico.  What a bunch of morons.  As far as I'm concerned, they can have southern California, at least north to the shit-hole known as Los Angeles.  I've been there only once, and will never set foot there again.

These crazy open-border activists present ludicrous interpretations of the new Arizona law.  Some see it as an open invitation for racial profiling, others as a Nazi-like effort to round up immigrants and send them off to some Mexican death camp.

And you always expect the idiots of Hollywood to offer their support or opposition to the social "cause-du-jour".  What pisses me off most are these filthy-rich actors and Hollywood twits, always claiming some connection with the poor, the hungry, the oppressed.  They put together one lame benefit after another in order to donate someone else's money to "their cause".  After which, the return to their plush, million-dollar estates, surrounded by a luxury of wealth made possible by the very system they decry.

Nobody, except perhaps an illegal, could possibly deny that the US has a severe problem with the security of our southern border.  The fact that the federal government has ignored this problem for thirty years has not made it any easier to solve.  Many who have been here illegally for so long now have families, children who are US citizens, and this makes the problem exponentially more difficult.

Even though the subject touches people deeply, it is amazing to me is how many get caught up in the hysteria caused by the misinformation and ignorance of the Amnesty/Open Border/Reconquista idiots.  The most vocal, of course, are the ones with the most to gain.

The solution is simple - secure the border by whatever means necessary.  Show these people that our border is to be respected.  The damned federal government isn't doing its job.  Arizona is trying to stop the flood, and I salute Governor Brewer for taking a stand.

The Sad Case of General Stanley McChrystal

As much as it hurts, I must admit that this is actually something Obama has finally gotten right. There can be no dissention in the chain of command, and even though most agree that Obama should not be in charge of a popsicle stand, he was absolutely correct in relieving McChrystal of his command, if for no other reason but to show our enemy that our resolve and commitment is still strong.

My biggest question is this: why are we waiting until July, 2011, to give up and come home? Why not give up today, right now? It would save countless lives, billions of dollars, and will accomplish exactly the same thing - absolutely nothing.

We have spent over 9 years now, chasing an insanely impossible dream to rid the world of Islamic extremists. Setting a time limit ensures that the idiots who originally pretended this cause was important enough to throw away young American lives on will be the only ones to make themselves believe that their goal was met.

The day after we leave, the Taliban will return, the puppet Afghan government will crumble, and it will be as if none of this had ever happened.  As if we have any right to dictate to any country as to how they should conduct their business in the first place.

Anyone who doubts this is a fool, perhaps an even bigger fool than the idiot Bush, who put us in this mess to begin with.  Assume we do finally catch Bin Laden (if that was indeed the real reason behind the invasion).  Who really thinks that Al-Qaeda or the Taliban will just quit and go home?  There will never be an end to the radical Islamic extremists, who live for a single purpose: the enforcement of shari'a (strict Islamic) law and bring death to all who oppose.

It has been especially sickening to realize the useless waste of lives and resources while being subjected to the populist rhetoric about establishing justice and democracy in Afghanistan, as spewed forth by both parties. Of course, most Democrats saw the presumed righteousness of this conflict only after Obama adopted it in 2009 as the "Good War", the "Bad War" being Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, but now we're splitting hairs.  And we are still fighting both.

So we now have a new General to continue our rousing success in Afghanistan.  When the July 2011 deadline comes, will we have succeeded?  How do we even measure the success of our mission?  I believe it was our Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who claimed that one measure of success in Afghanistan would be when a functional government was established that the people could trust.  I could not help but think that, although this is a noble cause, shouldn't we really establish something like that here, in our own country, first?

Jobs Fo' Shizzle

Jobs, jobs, jobs. Where have I heard that before? I believe it was early in 2009. Poor delusional Joe Biden tries to wrap his feeble brain around the lie that the Obama Spending Bill was anything but a poorly disguised bailout.
Joe's handlers feed him scraps of information, like the 2.8 million jobs saved or created. Jobs created, Joe? Nothing has been created, and no jobs have been saved, either. Merely postponed. The layoff of millions of state employees was delayed by Obama's bailout, nothing more.

Guess what, Joe? When the money is spent, the jobs will disappear. How will you spin that? Somebody underestimated how serious our problem was again? And, as for our Campaigner-in-Cheif, Obama's answer is to travel around the counrty and make more speeches. Predictably vague and empty speeches, where each sentence seems to contradict the next.
In classic Obama double-speak, most speeches sound alike: "...we must reduce our debt to a sustainable level..." is always followed by "...we must increase government spending to sustain the recovery..." Please, would somebody tell this idiot that massive goverment spending means either debt or tax increases - you can't have it both ways. Also remind him that it is impossible to borrow and spend one's self out of debt.

This is the same leadership Obama showed in his two years as a senator, where he voted "present" 163 times. The man is too smart to take a stance, and wants to play both sides of any argument. Too smart, or too spineless - the jury is still out.
Obama is not a leader - he is a dreamer. He should stick with something he has actual experience with - defrauding the taxpayers out of money as a community organizer. Does it seem odd to anyone else that the organizer gets rich while the community stay poor? As people are starting to discover, Obama's economic strategy for this country seems to be another Acorn scam on a national level.

Arizona Rules!

As far as this AZ thing, securing the border is the top priority.  In fact, one of the federal government's primary duties, as per the Constitution (Article 4, Section 4) is to provide the citizens of every state protection against invasion.  How anyone can call the millions of illegal entries each year from Mexico anything but an invasion is beyond reason.

Upon reading S.B.1070, there is no encouragement, implied or otherwise, to racially profile anyone.  That is a paranoid delusion, another piece of misinformation used by the insane supporters of blanket amnesty and open borders for these criminals who invade our country.  Legal immigration and assimilation into the "Great Melting Pot" of America is welcome.

Being proud of your heritage is one thing.  Immigrating to America to become a part of it, to share its freedom and prosperity, is what brought us all here in the first place.  But since the American Revolution, we have had immigration laws to limit and control who and how many come here.  Like it or not, the entire planet cannot live here.

If you get stopped by the police, you are asked for your license and insurance.  If you cash a check, or use a credit card, or rent a car, hotel room, buy a plane ticket, you are asked to prove your identity.  Do we make exceptions for Hispanics, for fear of "profiling", or should all citizens be required to comply with the law?

Since 1965, any non-citizen who is legally in the US is required to carry identification to that effect.  The only people who should worry about S.B.1070 are illegal immigrants.  The biggest problem with the immigration issue is that Washington uses Hispanics, legal and illegal, as political pawns.

What I have a huge problem with is this:  why should the United States be the only country in the world that is not allowed, because of political correctness, to secure its borders and protect its citizens?  There is no place on this earth where you can just waltz through border checkpoints without showing a passport or some sort of ID - except between Mexico and the US.  The reason?  An unholy alignment between business and government.

The Mexican government protests any closing of their northern border for two reasons.  Their economy depends on billions of dollars in remittances, sent from Mexicans from the US.  Additionally, by exporting its workforce, the Mexican government does not have to deal with millions of poor who would other wise drain its resources for food, medicine, and education. 

The US government pretends to take a tough stand on illegal immigration, but in reality turns a blind eye for two reasons.  By allowing lower than minimum wages, the exported Mexican work force keeps prices of agricultural products low.  And by sharing in the cradle-to-grave entitlements this country offers, the politicians hope to add to their base, creating an entire new generation of voters from these "unregistered Democrats."

How could identifying an Hispanic illegal alien along the Mexican border be deemed racist?  Oh, yeah - he's Hispanic, and that means racism.  For the record, what would the odds be of a non-Hispanic illegal alien crossing our southern border?  Forget racial profiling and apply some common sense.  It would be damn near impossible to catch an illegal immigrant in Arizona if being politically correct means you're only allowed to look for white folks.

After all, if a 6 foot tall, bald headed black man, weighing 200 pounds, robs a bank at gunpoint while wearing blue jeans and an Obama T-shirt, you can bet your ass that police are looking for a black male, six foot, 200 pounds, bald head, wearing blue jeans and an Obama T-shirt, last seen running down the street, waving a gun and carrying a cloth bag with a large dollar sign on it.  Is this "profiling" or is it simply good police work?

Some say "that's the whole point - Arizona police will only be looking for Hispanics!"  Wrong.  The law applies to all races so anyone, of any race, who is caught entering this country illegally is subject to arrest and deportation.  Perhaps if Hispanic people from Mexico and Central America would stop sneaking into our country illegally, we could stop looking for Hispanic people sneaking into our country illegally.

Sometimes, Mr. President, The Truth Hurts

One would think, considering the magnitude of problems this country currently faces, that President Obama would be a very busy man.  But, obvious by his perpetual campaign tour, his top priority is keeping his party's stranglehold on our country intact.

I guess even the busiest world leader needs a break, however.  How sweet of Obama to take time away from his busy schedule to personally address the graduating class at the University of Michigan.

Read it for yourself here, if you have a strong stomach.  Like most Obama's speeches, it is long, boring, and self-serving.  Several passages have a gag factor that is off the scale. Like his comment about the child's letter asking if he wore black coat and had a beard.  "I guess he confused me with the other tall guy from Illinois," Obama quipped.  Funny, but I don't remember Blago having a beard, and I don't remember Daley as being tall.  Must be some other crooked politician from Illinois, then.

Equally as sweet was his condemnation of "over-the-top rhetoric" and "the proper role of government in a democracy." Obama explained his theory that democracy requires government to have an important role.  He went on to explain that you have nothing to worry about with the ever-growing control of the government.  He also touched on the subject of disenchantment with the government.

I suppose Obama had his reasons for only briefly mentioning the importance of the limited role of the federal government.  Apparently he is not of that school of thought, as job growth since he took office has been limited to the public sector.

Obama enlightened the crowd with his assertion that the argument shouldn't be between big government vs. small government, but instead should be how we can create a more efficient government.  Logic would suggest that, in most all cases, a smaller, less bureaucratic system could operate more efficiently.  But Obama seems to suggest his policy is that "big government is here to stay, and it will only get bigger, so get used to it."  Hard to imagine how he could deliver a line like that with a straight face.

He went on to remind the crowd that some things "only the government can do effectively."  If, by effectively, he meant wastefully executed and riddled with fraud and corruption, then I would have to agree.  There are few organizations which excel at mucking things up better than the massive bureaucracy of the federal government.  There has yet to be a single task, either economically or politically, to which government interference has not proven counter-productive.  If you want to guarantee higher costs, longer delays, greater waste, fraud and theft, just ask the government to get involved.

He spoke of the Great Depression, and how our government afterward put in place regulations to assure it would never happen again.  Understandably, he failed to mention anything about the government's systematic dismantling of these same regulations, which allowed our current economic situation to fester.

In his classic style of deception, Obama puts blame for the financial meltdown squarely on the fact that the government wasn't big enough.  He completely ignored the reality that it was the interference of the government over the last 50 years that pushed to inflate the mortgage bubble, eventually setting up the financial collapse.  At least he has stopped, for now, blaming his predecessor for his lack of success.

I believe Mr. Obama's real message here was "don't judge me on what I do, but judge me on how nice my speeches are."  And regardless of what Obama "believes" the proper role of government is, it is actually spelled out for us in the Bill of Rights.  I assume he has actually read it, but I believe he prefers to follow Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" instead.

The single portion of Obama's speech that contained any real truth was his point on civility, the need to "treat others as you would like to be treated, with courtesy and respect."  It would be nice to see Mr Obama follow his own advice.  He speaks of angry, "over-the-top" rhetoric, yet is constantly taking cheap shots at his opponents during his perpetual campaign tour.  And while he now decries massive corporate lobbyist contributions, he seemed to lose little sleep over accepting millions from the largest firms on Wall Street.

The kicker here was the plea for a 'return to civility' in politics.  Apparently Mr. Obama is allowing his critics to get under his skin.  I can only imagine that our President is tired of everyone crying "socialism" every time he takes over another piece of the private sector.  Many observers have noticed how surprisingly thin Obama's skin is.  Well, Mr. Obama, sometimes the truth hurts.

The President needs to get over it, because he hasn't heard anything yet.  If he thinks America will simply lay back and watch him dismantle our Constitution, vastly increase the size of federal government, and stand idly by while he pushes his socialist agenda upon the nation, then I believe 2012 will seem a very, very long time away.  He will be forever reminded that his 52% election victory was in no way a landslide, and is not a "mandate from the people' that he seems to assume.

It will be interesting to see what this generation of college graduates think of Mr Obama when they see how difficult it is to find a job in this economy.  Obama's concern for them is touching, especially his desire to see more of them pursue "public service" careers or "community organizing".  That would be fine, especially to repay the huge amount of debt amassed during their college education.  I'm sure that the New America will one day offer the green jobs, the high-tech jobs of the future that Obama   promised.  Now, if  he will just stop making promises and start delivering, we might have something here.

Obama to the Financial Rescue

How did we get into this situation?  We are once again in the midst of impending doom.  Without immediate financial reform, we face another near-collapse of the economy.  Who will save us from this  horrible fate?

Look!  Up in the sky!  The Campaigner-in-Chief is here to save us from ourselves, this time in a headlong push for government "reform" of the private financial sector.  Obama tells us that these greedy bastards were busy raking in huge profits from the financial ruin of average, hard-working Americans, and we cannot allow this to happen ever again.

Thank you, Obama.  Of course, in order to discover how to prevent this from ever reoccurring, we need an understanding of how it happened.  Obama would have everyone believe that it was fat cat Wall Street execs who went all-in with our life savings.  Call me crazy, but I tend to disagree with this convenient assessment.

What Obama refuses to address is that, at the core of the entire financial meltdown, was our government, hard at work interfering in things as usual.  Perhaps I speak too harshly, for perhaps they actually think their constant intervention is helping people.  It would be a relief if this were the case, for then we would understand the federal government as merely incompetent, rather than corrupt.  Unfortunately, recent polls show that only one in four people trust the federal government.

So who is to blame for inflating the sub-prime bubble?  Where did all those regulations come from to issue more and riskier loans?  Where were the regulators who were supposed to keep an eye on our most prolific mortgage lenders, Fannie and Freddie?

There were investigations into rumors of impropriety and excessive risk by Fannie and Freddie, but congressional Dems defended the lending agencies tooth and nail.  "Nothing wrong here," shouted Barney Frank, or "Countrywide" Chris Dodd, or the champion of hedge funds, Chuck Schumer.  Of course, we found out the hard way that there was very much wrong.

I wonder why Obama won't support a deeper look into this, or comply with the Freedom of Information Act to open the records to the public?  I hope it doesn't have anything to do with the amount of campaign contributions Obama accepted from these two lending giants.

I cannot understand why any true "financial reform" legislation would fail to address the root cause of our financial meltdown.  The proposed bill is completely devoid of  any mention of Fannie and Freddie.

The idea of establishing an agency inside the Fed, which basically answers to no one and having the power of life or death over financial firms as is deems appropriate, does not seem like the type of "reform" we need.  It sounds more like the fox guarding the hen house to me.

There are obviously some points in the proposed legislation that seem to need debate and discussion.  But with claims of a second financial meltdown hanging over our heads, Obama assures us that, although not perfect, we need to something, and we need to do it now.  Right now, immediately, before the anti-Wall Street sentiment he stirs up has any chance to fade.

This is becoming a predictable pattern with the Obama administration.  Every situation is massaged into some dire situation.  It is always "the worst (insert theme here) crisis in history!"  We are made to believe that, without some type of massive and immediate government intervention, our world will surely come crashing down upon us.

We should all remember his first crisis, a crisis of such magnitude that, if action wasn't taken immediately, we would see unemployment rise to 8% and a total collapse of our economy.  Yes, the $800B Obama Stimulus bill was designed to curtail the "worst economic situation since the Great Depression."

Most suspected his claims were less than truthful, yet that bill was quickly passed, nearly a year and a half ago.  Is anyone really surprised that we have seen none of the 4 million jobs Obama swore this bill would create?

Meanwhile, unemployment rate has steadily risen to nearly 10%, expected by most to remain high for "an extended period", and there are talks of a second, even bigger "stimulus bill".  This is the way Washington's feeble mind works.  They don't see the concept of massive spending as wrong, they just see it as not massive enough.  Most economists now admit that FDR's spending did not end the Great Depression, but actually extended it by several years.  Most politicians, however, will not.


We have seen the results of Obama's "hurry up and reform something" strategy.  All the lies about Obamacare are now coming to light as we are finding out what most already knew concerning Obama's hasty, ill-conceived, unpopular legislation forced down the throats.

We cannot allow this charlatan to force yet another bad bill through Congress simply on his word of immediate crisis and claim of impending financial doom.  We are told one day that the recovery is in full swing, yet made to believe the sky is falling the next.  What are we supposed to believe?

As with Obamacare, this administration knows full well that the proposed legislation will never pass if the time is taken to examine its language and comprehend its future implications.  Although there is no doubt that regulation and oversight are sorely lacking in the derivatives market, why must we be constantly goaded into rushing headlong into doing something stupid?

If It's Tea Party, It's Got To Be Racist

The Tea Party  movement has gotten under the skin of the progressives, and it would seem the liberal media clowns can't scream "racist" loud or fast enough. 

Is a black man who lies any more dishonest than a white man who lies?  Or is it possible to determine who is telling the truth by his color?  I suppose the point here is that, if you're white, do you believe the idiot Bush when he lies.  Similarly, if you're black, do you believe the Marxist Obama when he lies?

The ignorant people of this country need to stop reducing everything to matters of race. They should start opening their eyes to the fact that all politicians, regardless of race or party affiliation, are devoid of moral character or conscience. They must lie, or at least hide the truth, for it is their nature.

We are all very afraid, or at least should be, of where this country is headed in the face of the federal government's increasing power and the massive growth of our debt. Enter the Tea Party, a group of concerned Americans who saw fit to organize and protest this disturbing trend.

With the election of Obama, the Left has been handed the perfect defense against the truth the behind the Tea Party Movement. A black man in the White House allows the issue of race to quiet any dissenting opinion of policy. The race card trumps all logic and reason, as it plays on emotion. It obscures the fact that the opposition is based on policy, not pigment.

As often the case with ignorant mobs, both sides reach for their torches and pitchforks to attack the other. The more the media plays up to the issues of race, the more tension and anger is spread among both sides.

All the while our "elected representatives" sit back and smile, pleased with their work of dividing America, diverting the mob's anger inward among itself. In the end, they win and America suffers.

Regardless of how we got here, the best solution is to reduce spending and reduce the size and power of Washington. My question is why are the Tea Party members the only ones who seem to understand this?  Perhaps the other side is still too busy hating Bush to see clearly.

Obama's Big Wall Street Adventure

When I read a propaganda piece such as this, gushing praise for the hard work Obama is doing, I can't help but feel a bit sickened.

First, however, I must give credit where credit is due.  Usurping the freedom and liberty of Americans progressively, piece by piece, must truly be hard work.

I would suggest a minor revision when stating Obama's role in financial reform might produce a more acceptable accounting of the truth:

"Obama's role consists of two parts: stirring up public outrage over the failure of government regulators to address the sub-prime mortgage problem which gave Wall Street the collateral which they bundled and traded in an unregulated derivative market, and to bribe or bully members of congress behind closed doors into supporting yet another huge grab by the federal government of what used to be known as the private sector."

The koolaid drinkers cheer wildly in support while the rational thinkers, who see this latest power grab for what it truly is, cry out in opposition. As with the Obamacare debacle, both sides want some type of reform of the financial industry, but the disagreement lies in how to accomplish this.  And, as with the Obamacare debacle, there is no way but Obama's way.

I marvel at the blatant hypocrisy Obama exhibits as he implies some involvement in underhanded dealings by McConnell's meetings with Wall Street CEOs.  Amazingly, Obama met with insurance, pharmaceutical, and health industry leaders on several occasions prior to and during his headlong push for Obamacare.

This behavior is typical of all Leftists, who use such tactics to denigrate their opponents for doing the same thing they engage in.  Of course, we all know that Obama was meeting secretly with these people to find the best way to help all Americans, while McConnell's nefarious purpose was to deny St. Obama yet another opportunity to help all Americans.  What, you don't believe that?  Of course you don't; no sane person would.

The standard Democrat response to everything is bigger government, more control, more bureaucracy, more cost, more waste, and more fraud.  And, when taxpayers show concern over more spending, the Democrats simply go on the offensive by charging any GOP opposition as childish, obstructive political gamesmanship from the "Party of No."

In front of hand-picked crowds of supporters, he continues his perpetual campaign and presents his false choices of either accepting his massive growth of government or "doing nothing".  Of supporting his version of "financial reform" or accepting a runaway Wall Street.

I have yet to hear from Team Obama anything addressing the government policies which set the stage for our financial near-collapse.  What about the push to increase sub-prime mortgages?  Who is going to investigate the role of Fannie and Freddie?  What about Dodd, Frank, and all the Dems who fought tooth and nail denying any improprieties?

Obama is more than anxious to pass everything he can before the midterm elections.  This mad rush to increase federal control must be met head on.  I think we can do a lot better than allow those responsible for our crisis to re-write the rules.  McConnell and the Republicans feel this way as well.

It is not a coincidence that most of the big investment firms on Wall Street are actually in favor of this new legislation.  It permanently establishes a "Too Big To Fail" mentality, allowing the Treasury to act independent of Congress to do whatever it wants to with any financial company it feels may be a systemic risk.

One proposed solution would be to reinstate and strengthen the power of the existing regulatory agencies.  Lord knows, we have enough in place to do the job.  This would certainly help reduce the logjam that is the federal government.  The problem with big government is big government.  One hand never knows what the other is doing.  It is a model of inefficiency, yet it continues to grow.

But the grand ego of Obama does not allow small, quick, and targeted solutions. With Obama, everything must be (all together now): "transparent, accountable, and unprecedented in scope."  Funny, but he never mentions anything about getting it right.

A Good Time to be in the Car Business

Will we ever see US automakers regain their status as King of the Car Makers?  Will they be able to shake the stigma of begging for hand-outs from Uncle Sam, or the staggering weight of bloated union contracts?

Looking in today's paper, there was a full-page ad from GM, touting their repayment of billions of taxpayer dollars.  Plus interest!  Damn!

I received this nice email yesterday, a warm and friendly reminder that GM has repaid its debt to the government, in full, and five years ahead of schedule:

Yesterday's AP post reveals a bit more than GM or Washington would like folks to know.  GM is still losing money, although not nearly as fast as they were.  And they are still 61% owned by the government (US and Canada) to the tune of a $45.3B investment by taxpayers.

Of course, the White House and the Treasury took no time to pat themselves on the back, beaming with pride at their success.  Joe Biden showered Obama with praise for his tough stance on the highly unpopular auto bailouts.  Tim Geithner was quick to point out how encouraging it was to see GM on a "strong path towards viability."

Yes, it looks like this is a good time to be in the car business - especially with the government propaganda machine running full throttle.  Taken at face value, it would seem that the economic recovery Washington claims we are now experiencing is indeed here.

Imagine my surprise when, the very next day, this newsworthy tidbit was revealed:  GM used Treasury funds to repay its loan.  More specifically, the Treasury put a tidy sum of the TARP funds into an escrow for just such an occasion.

Somebody has some 'splainin to do.  Ever wonder why the accountants can't actually account for all of the TARP money?  Might there be any more of these little "rainy day" funds lying around?  It will be interesting to see how Obama and company tries to pin this one on Bush.

It seems this entire debacle was just a cheap publicity stunt, another Team Obama dog and pony show.  Positive signs of a sound economy would certainly go a long way in helping Democrats in the 2010 elections.

It's a real shame that, without any real recovery to show for his efforts, Obama has to create the illusion of one.  If he would just put the same effort into helping our country recover, rather than to radically re-make it, the majority of the country might not distrust and despise him nearly as much.

Financial Reform?

More like a recipe for disaster.  Hey, I just had a really bad idea:  Let’s allow the greedy, corruptocrats responsible for our current economic situation to propose “the solution”.

Both Frank’s House bill and Dodd’s Senate bill have a huge slush fund built in ($150B/$50B) for exactly the bailouts that Obama claims won’t be happening anymore. Go figure.

Let’s not forget the new regulatory powers proposed by this new financial regulation which allows Congress (or an agent thereof) to determine which companies will survive and which will be “assimilated”. Of course, Congress already has their list of financial institutions which will never be allowed to fail, and have proved it with their bailouts to date.

It’s not that we don’t trust you, Obama. OK, so maybe we don’t trust you. But you must admit, it is not without good reason. Most everyone, except for your most die-hard, kookaid-drinking Obamanites, are still waiting to see those 3.5 million jobs your big stimulus bill promised.

Most now understand that Obama’s message of “Hope and Change” actually meant we should all hope that something might change. How much more damage can we absorb before the mid term elections? We need to send all these crooks packing. Come on, November! Daddy needs a (lot more than a) new pair of shoes.

Thanks - For Nothing!

Happy Tax Day!  How could Obama be confused about the tax protests happening around the country on April 15th?  For a smart guy, he is sure seems to be one dumb son-of-a-bitch.

Apparently, borrowing trillions of dollars and piling up massive new debt is always a good thing, since it “…puts hard-earned money back into the pockets of everyday people.”  Well, gee-whiz, Mr. Obama, thanks a lot.  One day you will get the credit you deserve.

Why wasn't this approach just as great when Bush did it?  I can never understand why anything claimed as "evil" when done under the Bush administration becomes the righteous justification for Obama to do the same.  I will just have to learn to accept the inherent hypocrisy of libera

Perhaps Bush didn't offer a host of lies and false claims of how the tax cuts would "pay for themselves" and are "deficit neutral" as did our new Liar-in-Chief.  The saddest part is that a great majority of our country cannot see Obama for what he is:  just another crooked politician.  Worse, he is an inexperienced idealist with a far left agenda of wealth redistribution.

Obama offers a carrot, a bribe, a gift from our kind and benevolent Leader. And all he asks in return is that we accept his guidance and leadership. That we bow before his omnipotence.  That we above all do not question his word or his work, which would, of course, reveal the deep hatred toward any people of color.

I never realized how many things wrong with this planet can be attributed to racism.  If you listen to anyone connected with the Obama administration or the liberal mainstream media, you will quickly and constantly be reminded of this indisputable "fact".

Take the 30 pieces of silver which the One has generously bestowed upon his followers. Do not worry about the huge increases in taxes that must follow. The harmful effects of Obama’s massive spending will not be even have began to be fully realized until Obama has long retired, exactly as planned.

Paying for it will be someone else’s problem. For now, it’s still “all Bush’s fault”. But don’t worry, they will just pretend they can extract more taxes from the “evil rich”. Everybody hates the "evil rich".  That lie has always worked in the past, so why change?

So, for now, sell your soul now for that tiny check, and let your children, and theirs, inherit our burden of debt.  Thanks and praise to Obama, the great giver-backer of the taxes that he took from us.

Don't worry about the children.  We must remain realistic.  For all we know, our children might never amount to anything.  Why even give them the chance?  We want - no, we need - that new car, that plasma TV, and we need it today.  Let the kids get their own.  Shit, they just got "free" health care.  What else do they want from us?

Welcome to Obama’s new America.  Amnesty lines now forming soon.

Jobless Recovery? What "Recovery"?

The Obama administration speaks out both sides of its mouth and, quite frankly, most people are sick of it. Perhaps this explains his falling approval ratings.

On one hand, Obama is quick to take credit for his failed Stimulus Bill at every opportunity. When the numbers are positive, its "look what I did!" And, when the numbers are negative, its "look what Bush did!"

And so Obama continues his double-speaking perpetual campaign mode. Taking credit for "turning the economy around", while simultaneously claiming unemployment rates will continue to "remain unacceptably high for the remainder of the year".

While it it accepted that consumer spending is responsible for 70% of our economy, it seems unlikely that sustained levels of spending can continue with such a high unemployment rate.

It is time to stop patting yourself on the back, Obama. Your smug arrogance over the passage of your mandated insurance bill is remarkable, considering the despicable means you had to resort to.

Businesses are afraid to grow or hire new employees, for they can guess that you have more tricks up your sleeve in order to redistribute the wealth. Anyone of reasonable intelligence understands that taxes will skyrocket in order to pay for this massive welfare state you wish to create. Until your spending spree has stopped, and the real costs become apparent, there will be no job growth and our economy quite possibly remain in limbo for a decade.  Konichiwa, Obama-san?

You will be long gone by then, and you and Jimmy Carter can sit around and argue over which of you buffoons did the most damage to America.  Unfortunately, the damage will have been done, and we may never truly recover.