A lot is being made over the recent row between Allen West and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. As per the norm, the liberals are framing it so the Allen West is just bat turd crazy and went off on poor little Debbie.
What all of them are ignoring is their past. As Allen states, Wasserman-Schultz isn’t a lady wallflower.
Now, one can assume Wasserman-Schultz’s vitriol for West stems from one of many issues. He’s a Republican. He’s a conservative. He’s not as white as she is. He’s not as female as she is. However, in that video, she singles out one very specific reason to justify her attacks. He is a Tea Party favorite. She HATES the Tea Party.
Now, I’m a tepid Tea Party kinda guy. I believe in some of their fundamental beliefs. But, they don’t seem to have a whole lot of details on how to get to that point. You can’t just chop off the budget. Can’t do it. Too many legal issues. You can start working on it. And that would be a good thing to do. And, if this country is to survive too much longer, will HAVE to be done. But, what I have not seen the Tea Party do is endorse ethical values. I like that. The Tea Party I learned to know and love was purely a fiscal entity. They never got sucked into the abortion issue, gay rights, or anything else that truly falls outside the domain of the FEDERAL government. Individual candidates do, but not the national level Tea Party, that I was aware of. So, EITHER Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is ignorant of the core Tea Party issue that got this whole thing rolling, OR, she’s attacking the generalization that the Tea Party is simply a renamed Reagan era conservative group. That’s simple. That’s easy. That’s what a lot of liberals do.
But, I’m here to state clearly that if the Tea Party does nothing else at all in the next Congressional election, they need to target Debbie Wasserman-Schultz with every single penny they have.
I’m sure she obviously hates Allen West. But, it’s obvious she hates the Tea Party just as much. As a member of the Progressive Caucus, she has to. Nothing is more opposed to a limited government than the Progressives. Nothing the Tea Party could possibly target would have more meaning than the Progressives. It goes beyond party, it goes beyond race, it goes beyond gender. It would completely define the fight as it needs to be. Big Brother vs States’ Rights as defined by the Constitution.
You REALLY need to do this or run the risk of getting lost like all the other “movements” of my lifetime.
22
Mar
That’s not my poll, but it’s a dead-on appropriate question. Obama says it’s about the intended genocide Khadafi threatened. Well, that’s been going on unabated in Yemen, Sudan, and several parts of Africa. What’s so special about Libyans that other Africans don’t merit?
When Bush citied weapons of mass destruction and known threats coming from Iraq, a good chunk of the media claimed it was all about the oil. Libya has provided a lot more oil than Iraq ever did and so far, best I can tell, not one single person on MSNBC or CNN has questioned Obama about his intent regarding Libya. In fact, CNN has gone to more trouble to point out this action is nothing like Iraq. Attacking two genocidal dictators of oil rich nations is merely a coincidence according to CNN. What Bush did was bad, what Obama did justified. Only difference was the one Bush took out was attacking other countries repeatedly, the one Obama took out was not.
Check that, another difference was one country was threatening us with weapons of mass destruction, and had used them against others. The other was not.
Check that again, one had known terrorist organizations thriving and operating from their country, the other claims to be under attack from those terrorist organizations and had recently assisted us in targeting terrorist organizations.
Check that one more time. One had committed genocide against his own people, the other threatened to.
Check that yet again, one president asked Congress for approval to attack another country, one did not.
That’s more of your change you can believe in.
Obama doesn’t like Arizona’s border security law. According to him, Janet Napolitano, and Eric Holder, it is so bad they won’t even read it. I mean, without even having to read all sixteen pages, anyone would know it invites racial profiling. In simple terms, if you looked like you were from Mexico, they could ask you if you were from Mexico. However, that’s not the case. If you’re busted for committing a crime, they can ask if you’re a US citizen or not. If you’re not, they can lock you up and get you off the streets immediately. Just like they would a US citizen. Crazy huh? Obama, using his powers as President. Did what any president would do. He invited a foreigner to speak to our Congress so that the foreigner could trash one of our states.
Now, Felipe’s idea of making things better on the border is for Arizona to drop their crazy idea of putting people breaking laws in Arizona in jail and let things go back to normal. In exchange, he promised that he’d talk a lot more about border security to Obama. Obama promised to talk a lot more about border security too with Calderon. On top of that, he won’t send the National Guard to keep an eye on things.
How can Arizona possibly turn all that down?
Honestly, that’s one of the cheapest shots I’ve seen a President take, ever.
When is Jan Brewer scheduled to speak to OUR Congress about the necessity of the law? When are the US citizens living at risk on the border going to speak to OUR Congress? When are the citizens of Arizona going to be given the same respect as Mexican organized crime?
That is striking some as possibly the stupidest comment by what has become arguably the stupidest Congress in the history of the United States of America. After realizing his comment made him look quite stupid, he released this explanation:
OK, so we’re just supposed to know, regardlesss of the fact that he never mentioned those issues, that that’s what he was referring to. Maybe a lot of people didn’t follow his logic because we don’t usually consider the House Armed Services Committee a place to discuss global warming concerns. This is also the guy who thinks “folks wearing white hoods and uniforms running through the countryside” would be “logical”:
I have to take some responsibility for this. I supported his initial campaign. It just seemed at the time the whole world would be better served by anyone, I do mean anyone, other than Cynthia McKinney.
Yeah, I’m not so sure about that now. What IS your problem Decatur?
Health Insurance reform passed the House this evening. That’s late Sunday night for those not in the Eastern Time Zone. I’m not going to belabor how horrid this thing is. I just ask people to do one thing. Make a note right now of what benefits you have and how much you’re paying to get it. If you don’t have any, make a note of that as well.
I’d really appreciate those who put a comment on here with that.
Depending on whether or not this thing survives, health care insurance in the United States is dead as we know it.
26
Jan
A full year into Obama‘s four year term, he’s still passing the buck:
“Today’s report from C.B.O. confirms that the recession inherited from the Bush Administration continues to erode the budget’s bottom line,” said Representative John M. Spratt Jr., the Democrat of South Carolina who is chairman of the House Budget Committee.
From the start of his administration, Obama promised to cut the $1 trillion deficit he inherited in half by 2012.
President Obama’s team may well have prevented the collapse of the nation’s banking system from a crisis the president inherited,
On and on and on it goes. Can’t blame Democrats because Obama inherited this mess. Only problem with that scenario is it was the Dems, not Bush, that created the mess in the first place.
That’s what’s happened since Nancy Pelosi and the Dems took over the spending and budgeting process. The economy was cruising along in one of the longest growth periods in the history of the planet. Then thing got bumpy in 2007. The big spike around January 2009 was not the beginning of the chart, it’s the MIDDLE of the chart. Obama was part and parcel to the problem as a member of the controlling party. The mess he’s complaining about is the mess him, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid created with their spending plans.
Where it gets really pathetic is Obama blaming the minority party in Congress for not allowing the Democrats in Congress to spend the money as they see fit now. That’s what this is all about. So, if the President can’t control what Congress is doing in 2009 and 2010, how was the President in 2007 to blame for what that Congress did then?
Seems kind of obvious, in-your-face kind of stuff to me. But, no one in media can see that. They just keep repeating the Democrat Holy Grail over and over and over, “it’s Bush’s fault”. Meanwhile, they lost two Governor’s races and a long-time solid blue Senate seat. Last week the 12th incumbant Democrat retired rather than face the voters again. Was that a clue that the blame game wasn’t working any more? No, they blamed those losses on, you guessed it, the economy they inherited.
And the media sang backup.
Now Obama is saying he wants to freeze federal growth after spending a trillion dollars to stimulate it. But, he’s not sure he can do that. It may not be possible due to, drum roll please, the economy he inherited.
That would be yet another campaign promise broken.
And the media will blame it on the economy he inherited.
And the Democrat losses in November will multiply.
And Obama will blame it on Bush.
And the media will back him up.
OK, quit laughing. Paul Krugman, the guy who won a Nobel prize for economics for criticizing George Bush ad nauseum, still lives on that one trick. Citing a laundry list of bizarre claims, he criticizes Bush even though Bush had nothing to do with any of the issues. But, the issues are complex and many. He was busy last night apparently.
Unless some legislator pulls off a last-minute double-cross, health care reform will pass the Senate this week. Count me among those who consider this an awesome achievement. It’s a seriously flawed bill, we’ll spend years if not decades fixing it, but it’s nonetheless a huge step forward.
Ya get that? Now, the Republicans argument was it was a seriously flawed bill that we’ll spend years if not decades fixing. Why not slow down and get it right? Krugman then trashes the Republicans for acting on what he just criticized. Coming from a Nobel economist, that’s kinda scary. He’s saying it’s a huge step forward screwing up about 20% of our entire economy. Sounds kind dysfunctional to me.
After all, Democrats won big last year, running on a platform that put health reform front and center. In any other advanced democracy this would have given them the mandate and the ability to make major changes.
And it did. They have the mandate.
But the need for 60 votes to cut off Senate debate and end a filibuster — a requirement that appears nowhere in the Constitution, but is simply a self-imposed rule — turned what should have been a straightforward piece of legislating into a nail-biter. And it gave a handful of wavering senators extraordinary power to shape the bill.
Each piece of legislation comes with it’s own rules. If a piece of legislation requires a simple majority, that’s the way it is. The Democrats have the super-majority. It’s no one else’s fault they’re not getting anything serious done.
Krugman’s solution?
Back in the mid-1990s two senators — Tom Harkin and, believe it or not, Joe Lieberman — introduced a bill to reform Senate procedures. (Management wants me to make it clear that in my last column I wasn’t endorsing inappropriate threats against Mr. Lieberman.) Sixty votes would still be needed to end a filibuster at the beginning of debate, but if that vote failed, another vote could be held a couple of days later requiring only 57 senators, then another, and eventually a simple majority could end debate. Mr. Harkin says that he’s considering reintroducing that proposal, and he should.
Why even bother? Just let the controlling party enact whatever legislation they want. Do away with super-majorities and filibusters entirely. Whoever wins gets it all. The losing party members take a vacation for two years. There’d be no need for Congress or Senate. If the president and majority are the same party, it’s a done deal. If they’re not of the same party, then you’ve got a stalemate that would require some finagling. Sounds like a socialist wet dream. Now, what Krugman would have to take into consideration is the last eight years before 2008 would have been 100% Bush’s whims. There would have been no reining him in. Is that truly what a Nobel economist thinks is a good economic situation? Want an endless list of why it’s not? We’ll start with Lenin. Communist Russia never had to to worry about competing parties. it collapsed economically. Coincidence?
It’s amazing that because Obama‘s not getting what he wants in a timely enough manner, a Nobel economist thinks we should abandon the US Constitution entirely.
Here’s an even bigger new flash, the seriously flawed bill that we’ll spend years if not decades fixing it, but nonetheless is a huge step forward according to Krugman, isn’t even what Obama wanted in the first place. Is that because Republicans filibustered it? No. It’s because Ben Nelson secured a rather bizarre assurance that Nebraska will never have to cover it’s additional share of Medicare. Nebraska gets a special prize with Medicare, Utah gets an extra Congressman. What other abuses does Krugman think would have benefited the country if Obama, Reid, and Pelosi didn’t have to worry about a minority party?
Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director. Handpicked of course, by President Obama. She apparently flew through the “vetting” process to assure she had some goofball felony charge pending or supported some radical element such as the Bolizean Grove or Bill Ayers. At first it just seemed a couple of bad apples slipped through the “vetting”. However, at this point, it’s just a process of picking what looniness will be exposed on anyone that has anything to do with The White House. For ten months, anyone who claimed that members of the Democratic Socialists of America might be socialists have been attacked endlessly by people like Anita Dunn. Although the evidence is in black and white, video, pictures, and about every imaginable media, anyone who pointed that out just wanted Obama to fail and was just a bitter rural Christian radical. So, imagine how a lot of people felt when they saw this video:
Yeah, you heard that right. That’s Anita Dunn, the WHITE HOUSE Communications Director, putting Mao Tse Tung in the same context as Mother Teresa.
Do I need to repeat that? This woman respects Mao Tse Tung equally with Mother Teresa.
Sheez, I could repeat that one hundred times and it would still sound crazier than hell.
OK, so now we’ve got communist sympathizers in THE WHITE HOUSE. Before people get too crazy, Mao Tse Tung was a communist. Anita Dunn sympathizes with his philosophy. She is therefore a communist sympathizer in THE WHITE HOUSE.
And she’s telling us now not to trust anyone on Fox. Now you know why. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, didn’t bring this to light. And, they never would have.
I think my conclusion is rather obvious on having a communist sympathizer IN THE WHITE HOUSE. My conclusion also is that since so many radicals and potential felons have cleared The White House vetting process, maybe Congress needs to look a little closer into Obama’s liberal use of appointing czars without Congressional approval. I hear Nancy Pelosi’s looking closely at The White House in her ongoing fight against the culture of corruption.
While we’re waiting for Pelosi’s announcement, and during the time it takes Obama to throw Anita under the Obama bus, I think some music would be enjoyable:
And, before I forget, no two “philosophers” could be any more different than Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa. To put them on the same level is disgusting. One respected all people. The other respected no one. Considering the weight Anita Dunn gave to each “philosopher”, it’s obvious which she identifies with more.
Truly disgusting. This lady makes Van Jones look good.
And when exactly are the other networks going to start taking a closer look at the people Obama are handing incredible power to with our money?
First, the obvious:
Per Eric Holder, the new hate crimes bill was not intended to protect everyone equally under the law.
I got a problem with that. The ONLY intent of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to insure everyone is protected equally by the law. For the US Attorney General to not recognize the ONLY intent of the US Constitution and US Bill of Rights is absurd. Being as it obviously discriminates, it should most likely be struck down if anyone cares to challenge it in court. Not that the previous version was any better, this one’s just worse. Now, before all the gay rights people get all worked up, it’s not because of who it supports. It’s the fact that it’s a pretty stupidly worded piece of legislation.
In a prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence of expression or associations of the defendant may not be introduced as substantive evidence at trial, unless the evidence specifically relates to that offense.
Got that?
1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (New International Version)
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
OK, so a preacher recites this part and condemns all immoral behaviors, the members shout “AMEN!”. One of them gets a little carried away and kills a homosexual, a greedy person, a drunk, a slanderer, and a swindler. Killing the homosexual would get him in a lot of trouble. Killing the greedy person, the drunk, the slanderer, or the swindler, not so much. Unless of course, the greedy person, the drunk, the slanderer, and the swindler were homosexual. Then he’s really screwed. It doesn’t stop there:
“We also sent Lut: He said to his people: Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds. And his people gave no answer but this: they said, “Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!”" (Qur’an 7:80-82)
Islam, ditto, if not worse.
Judaism?
“[A man] shall not lie with another man as [he would] with a woman, it is a to’eva” (Leviticus 18:22).
Ditto.
I’m not EVEN going to go into the more radical beliefs. Some of them are rather harsh and unforgiving. But, the way this law is written, if the person committing the crime attended a church, and the church condemns homosexual activity, the leader of the church, at the very least, could be held liable. I can’t wait till someone claims “God told me to.:. Then it will get real interesting real quick.
Now, of course, where this bugs me is I am an average white guy, not overtly religious, not gay, and not from a protected ethnicity ( Indians and whatnot ). And, to top it off, I don’t hate any group of people. So, hate crime bills just don’t do much for me. But, what if I wonder into the wrong bar in a big city? Let’s say, it’s a bar full of black gay Jews who hate Americans. Yeah, I know, broad sweeping generalization as there are black gay Jewish bars all over the country. But, it serves a purpose. One of the members of this bar full of black gay Jews takes offense to my life choices of being an average white heterosexual male and does me great harm. That is not a hate crime under Eric Holder’s interpretation of what the law should be in the United States.
To me, it most definitely is no different than singling out a person because they are gay. I have a real problem with Eric Holder discriminating against groups of people for any reason whatsoever. Some ignorant hick doing it is one thing, the person in charge of assuring the law is applied under the terms of the contract he agreed to enforce for all of the United States is totally another. Eric Holder should not be OK with this, he should be screaming mad against it.
How’s about this for a concept? Any crime committed against another person because of who that person is shall be considered a hate crime.
Now, under MY scenario, and do understand, this is MY scenario, even that kid that beat the other kid to death in Chicago a couple of weeks ago would be prosecuted as a hate crime. As it is now, it won’t be. However, I would argue that the kid was beat to death because he wasn’t “like” the boys who beat him. He wasn’t a gang-banging piece of trash. However, gang banging pieces of trash killing good kids isn’t a hate crime in Eric Holder’s mind so long as those doing the killing weren’t white. If they had been white, all hell would have befallen them. But, since they weren’t white, in order to really get them put away for a long time, they’ll have to claim they thought the victim was gay. If they expressed that thought at any time publicly, watch out.
Wild concept huh? Treating everyone equally. That’ll get the support of no one. Especially this administration.
This is flat out an attack on all religion. Christians seem to think they are being targeted, but it’s not just them. It’s all religion. Any situation where a person is speaking to a group of people on the issue of morality runs the very real risk of incriminating themselves if anyone listening to them commits a crime.
In the long run I think this will be struck down in the Supreme Court. Not so much because it discriminates against non-gays. But, because it infringes on the free rights of speech of others who might be legally implicated under this law for expressing their view. Regardless of what John Conyers and Eric Holder desire, Free Speech is still a right in this country.
16
Sep
Given the almost daily headlines and scandals involving ACORN, some members of Congress have decided that maybe ACORN’s not the best route to take involving some community projects. It seems like a no-brainer to me. You’ve accusations of voter fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, forging federal applications, shaking down banks to make risky loans, and a few others. I personally have enjoyed their advise on how to become a pimp to import minor girls to be sex slaves on the cheap.
Then, someone in government came to the conclusion that with all these accusations of felonies and stuff, maybe federal funding isn’t such a good idea right now. So, they had some votes. Most people seem to agree that ACORN’s not really the best avenue for some projects right now.
Senate Amendment S.2355 Prohibits the use of funds to fund the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). It was authored by Mike Johanns. It was then co-sponsored by:
- Sen Michael B. Enzi [WY]
- Sen Saxby Chambliss [GA]
- Sen Jim Bunning [KY]
- Sen Jon Kyl [AZ]
- Sen Richard Burr [NC]
- Sen Jim DeMin t[SC]
- Sen Robert F. Bennett [UT]
- Sen Pat Roberts [KS]
- Sen John Barrasso [WY]
- Sen Tom Coburn [OK]
- Sen Johnny Isakson [GA]
- Sen Orrin G. Hatch [UT]
- Sen John Thune[SD]
- Sen Roger F. Wicker[MS]
They then held the vote. These seven decided ACORN deserved millions of public dollars regardless of all the felonies they have been accused of:
- Roland Burris (D-IL)
- Robert Casey (D-PA)
- Richard Durbin (D-IL)
- Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
- Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
- Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
As expected, those condoning the continued corruption of ACORN were all Democrats ( Sanders caucuses with the Democrats ). As expected as well is the fact that most of the votes against the amendment came from New York and Illinois. Oddly enough tho, ACORN seems to have a firm grip on Vermont? I’m waiting on Nancy Pelosi to tell us again how she’s fighting the culture of corruption.
