Pelosi Knows Nothing About Patriotism
Feb 21, 2018 Political, Tyranny
Nancy Pelosi is a brain dead moron whose Botox injections have numbed the small clump of cells that pass for a brain in that think noggin of hers. She is obviously suffering from dementia and should retire to the old politician’s home as quickly as possible to save us from her stupidity and to save her from further embarrassment.
If you will recall not so long ago Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare through Congress without ONE SINGLE Republican vote. The legislation was composed in back rooms and with special interest groups in order to impose the biggest burden possible on American citizens. Pelosi famously told us we had to pass it to see what was in it.
I know that this flies in the face of your education which tells us that bills are introduced and they are read and debated and that the public has a right to know what is going on. Yes, Pelosi was anything but transparent and she used deception to pass this freedom killing legislation.
Now we have Nancy Pelosi discussing the recently passed tax cuts that President Trump signed into law. People are already feeling the effects of lower taxes and higher paychecks and businesses are handing out bonuses, pay raises and hiring more people. These things are what Pelosi describes as crumbs.
Yes, Pelosi thinks that the money you get to keep is crumbs. The money in question is usually reported as in the thousand dollar range and while this might be crumbs to an extremely rich person like Pelosi, it is substantial money to the rest of us. ANY of YOUR money that you get to keep and government does not take is substantial. But you see, Pelosi is upset that you are getting more of YOUR money because she thinks it should be kept by government and used on social programs. She thinks this will help others. The reality is she would rather give crumbs to people on welfare in order to enslave them to the Democrat party (thus ensuring votes) than to let you keep YOUR money and spend it as you see fit.
Pelosi is also complaining that the tax law was written in the dark of night, not transparent and passed solely along party lines. She does not like that at all. You see, she only likes that when she and her party does it (see Obamacare for example).
Nancy wants you to know it is unpatriotic of Republicans to pass a law allowing you to keep more of your money or as I say, allowing the government to confiscate less of it. She is not the only liberal moron to use the words unpatriotic. When Bath House Barry Obama was running he criticized George Bush for the national debt that had increased by four or five trillion dollars and said this debt was being pushed on our children and grandchildren and that raising our debt was UNPATRIOTIC. The guy who was unable to place his hand over his heart or wear a Flag pin was telling us what unpatriotic is.
As an aside, Barack Obama was extremely unpatriotic BY HIS OWN DEFINITION. He doubled the debt from ten to twenty trillion and accumulated more debt in eight years than all the previous presidents COMBINED. He is not a patriot.
Neither is Nancy Pelosi. It is contrary to American values to take property from one person and give it to another. In times past people were shot or hanged for taking things that did not belong to them. Our money belongs to us and the government should not stealing it from us to spend on social programs. Far too many tax dollars pay for things that are not allowed by the Constitution and that are designed to redistribute wealth from those who earn it to those who do not. Pelosi thinks that allowing you to have your money rather than allowing government to confiscate it and give it to others is unpatriotic.
Keep in mind that this applies to YOU. Pelosi went out of her way to ensure that her property taxes on her THREE LUXURY homes were paid prior to the end of the year so she could get the benefit of the entire deduction. As you might know, the write off for such taxes has been limited under the new law. If it is unpatriotic for people to keep more of their money is it not unpatriotic for Pelosi to run out and do something that allowed her to pay less in taxes? She is a big time liberal so she should be more than happy to see an increase in her tax bill, you know so government has more to redistribute.
Sad thing is she is like most liberals (hell most politicians) in that she wants rules for us but different ones for her and her ilk. John Kerry was the same way. He registered his yacht in a state other than his home state to avoid taxes. Many politicians have schemes that they follow so they can pay less than we do. They like to blame the rich and call them greedy but politicians are a worse lot (and Pelosi is worth over 100 million dollars so she is fabulously wealthy) and do things that are contrary to what they require of us.
Pelosi is not a patriot. In days past she would have been taken out back and handled accordingly. The best we can hope for now is for her to retire as soon as possible or for the Grim Reaper to make a House call…
#taxcutswork
Sources:
NTK Network
Washington Free Beacon
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: lies, patriotism, Pelosi, tax cuts, transparent
Worst Bill Evah?
Dec 5, 2017 Political, Tyranny
Nancy Pelosi is screaming about the tax reform bill making its way through the Congressional sausage machine and she is not happy. When she is able to put words together and express a semi cogent thought she manages to rant about the tax bill being the worst ever. Yes, San Fran Nan is upset with the bill because, get this, it will add to the deficit and it will get rid of the Obamacare mandate. According to the dim bulb known as Pelosi, this will cause Armageddon. It will result is a lot of deaths.
Best I can tell from the news is that all human life on the planet will be extinguished when the tax bill becomes a law.
Good thing Democrats are not dramatic…
So Nancy Pelosi is worried about the debt. First of all there is no concrete evidence that the tax bill will cause the debt to rise. There are some reports but these are by the same organizations who told us Obamacare would save us money and was debt neutral. Obamacare is raising the debt and 2.2 TRILLION dollars looks like the net added to our ever growing debt. The reality is if taxes are cut more people will get to keep more of their money to spend and that will be great for the economy which will in turn get revenue flowing to Treasury.
The problem is not in tax cuts but in spending. Congress and the rest of the establishment government absolutely refuse to cut spending. If more revenue comes in they will spend even more. This has been demonstrated time and again and most recently during the Obama reign of terror. Record amounts of money were paid into the Treasury in many months and our debt still went up. Each time there is more money the government can’t resist spending it and more. This is one major reason our debt increases. Couple this with the fact that a lot of money is spent on programs that the government has no Constitutional power to be involved in and one can see why we continue to owe more money.
The national debt doubled under Obama. We went from just about 10 TRILLION dollars when Bush left office to just about 20 TRILLION when Obama left office. Nancy Pelosi and every other worthless liberal Democrat screaming about the debt were in office when this happened. They happily raised the debt ceiling, happily spent more and happily looked away as out debt continued to rise. Their concern now is nothing more than political theater. If Hillary Clinton had won (perish the thought) they Democrats would be pushing for more and more spending and more and more debt. They are absolute hypocrites.
Which puts me on to the next item. Brain dead Pelosi claims this is the worst bill in the history of Congress. I guess she is even including all the racist Democrat Jim Crow bills that became law and harmed the black population of our nation. Democrats were responsible and Democrat Pelosi thinks allowing YOU to keep more of YOUR money is worse than bills designed to keep blacks oppressed.
[note]You folks who pay no taxes don’t get to scream about who benefits because you have been benefiting all along as the rest of us paid and continue to pay your way.[/note]
Obamacare is one of the worst legislative pieces ever produced. It enslaved people, caused them harm, caused them increases in what they spend and forced them to buy a product whether they wanted it or not. It did this by forcing some tax payers to pay for others (in addition to their own) and it forced people to buy insurance or be fined (or taxed if you are John Roberts). It added to the national debt, resulted in people losing coverage and doctors they were promised they could keep and it did little more than make most people slaves to the government.
Nancy, the tax bill allows those of us who earn money and pay taxes to keep more of what we earn and pay less to the government. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING. It is certainly not the worst bill ever.
Unless of course your life revolves around waiting for your taxpayer funded handouts…
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: hypocrites, jim crow, liars, Pelosi, tax bill, treasury
Buffett Should Stick To What He Knows
Jun 27, 2017 Obamacare, Political, Tyranny
I don’t know how many times Warren Buffett will have to be wrong before people stop listening to him. I know he is pretty good at investing and he has billions of dollars but he should probably stick to the things he knows in order to avoid looking like a fool. Buffett once quipped about the fact he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary despite making so much more. His income was from capital gains and hers was ordinary income. Both are taxed at different rates (capital gains are lower). The liberals ran with his statement to make the claim the rich do not pay their “fair share.”
Buffett was recently interviewed on PBS and he stated that America needs to go to a single payer health care system like the one in the UK. He stated America could afford it as a wealthy nation and that this is what will solve the health care issues.
To be fair, Buffett did state he was not an expert on health insurance. He probably should have ended there but he kept going and that made him the fool once again.
WOODRUFF: “Something that affects all businesses is the cost of health care in this country and you’ve been vocal about that. You argue right now, in fact, that the cost of paying for health care can affect a company even more than taxes.”
BUFFETT: “Well it does. I mean in terms of our competitiveness in the world; health care in 1960 was 5 percent of GDP. And there’s only a hundred cents to the dollar. So it’s gone from 5 percent to 17 percent. And it keeps going up. Corporate taxes have gone down from 4 percent to 2 percent. So corporate taxes are way less of a factor in American competitiveness than overall business than medical costs.”
WOODRUFF: “As we sit here today in Omaha, the Republicans in Congress are madly trying to figure out what to do to replace ObamaCare, the Affordable Care Act. Do you have a firm idea in your mind what ought to be done about ObamaCare? Everybody acknowledges there’s been some problems.”
BUFFETT: “I think that’s way outside of my circle of competence. But I would say this. You can’t have that five go to 17 and move on to 20 and 22 or 24 percent, because there are only a hundred cents in the dollar. Health care is gobbling up well over $3 trillion a year. It’s just about the same as federal, the federal budget, I mean it’s getting up there.”
WOODRUFF: “Are we now at the point where the country does need to think about some sort of single-payer system in some more or another?
BUFFETT: “With my limited knowledge, I think that probably is the best system. Because it is a system, we are such a rich country, in a sense we can afford to do it. But in almost every field of American business, it pays to bring down costs. There’s an awful lot of people involved in the medical — the whole just the way the ecosystem worked, there was no incentive to bring down costs.”
WOODRUFF: “It sounds like what you’re saying with a single payer system it’s easier to figure out a way to?”
BUFFETT: “More effective, I think.”
We can’t afford 22 or 24% of GDP going to health care but the government can afford to pay the bill? Now I know that Buffett thinks a single payer system will reduce costs but he is wrong. The government never does anything efficiently and it never does anything UNDER budget. One only needs to look at Medicare (>$79 Trillion in unfunded liabilities) to see how inefficient government is. That program costs billions upon billions more than it was ever estimated to cost and shortfalls are addressed by reducing the amount doctors are paid for the care they provide. And what assurance do taxpayers have that once government controls health care it won’t start adding to the program? Look at Social Security (>$15 Trillion in unfunded liabilities). The government established that socialist program many decades ago and has added to it along the way so that now we have untold numbers of people on disability or some other aspect that was added. We can’t afford to sustain that program because government mismanages it and keeps adding treats to the Christmas tree…
Any person, and Buffett should pay close attention here, who thinks single payer government run insurance is good should look closely at the Veteran’s Administration. That program is a single payer government run program that only involves a small portion of the population as a whole but it is rife with waste and abuse. It is a fiasco that costs so much there are talks of decreasing other military programs to move money to the VA. There are long lists and veterans wait for months, or longer, to be treated. Many die before they are ever seen. This is the kind of program the uninformed like Buffett want for all of us.
Buffett tells you we are a wealthy nation and can afford it. This flies in the face of reality because the government is 20 TRILLION dollars in debt and has unfunded liabilities that exceed 100 TRILLION dollars. We are not a wealthy nation. We are dead ass broke because of people like Buffett and their belief that government can provide, do it all and afford it.
Government can’t because the taxpayer can’t and that is the bottom line.
A few more notes. Buffett is old and will be dead before anything like he proposes would ever take place. He won’t have to deal with it and even if he lived his wealth would ensure he never had to deal with it (neither will his heirs). It is also important to note that in the interview Buffett claims that businesses can’t afford health care costs but government can [so basically, the burden should be shifted]. I have already shown government can’t afford it but the bigger picture here is that Buffett, a business man, is talking about how to make his (and all) businesses more profitable. He wants to do that by putting the burden of health insurance on the government thus clearing businesses of that debt and burden. Of course Buffett would claim government (read the taxpayers) can afford it. He wants people to embrace this socialist crap so his businesses will be more profitable.
Buffett admitted this was not his expertise. Perhaps he should have left it at that instead of offering his opinion on something he is woefully unprepared to address.
To recap, Buffett does not know what he is talking about, single payer is a terrible idea, increasing the GDP will lower the percent of GDP health care costs and opening the market for insurers will give people choices that will reduce costs without involving the government. The government cannot do anything on a budget.
Anyone who wants single payer should move to the UK and live there for the rest of their lives. They get what they want and the rest of us are not burdened by their stupidity.
Related:
US Debt Clock
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: burdens, insurance, lies, single payer, taxpayers, UK, warren buffett
Note To Libs: Muskets Were Weapons Of War
Jun 20, 2016 Second Amendment, Terrorism, Tyranny
Every time there is a shooting in this country, that is every time some deranged liberal or Muslim terrorist shoots a bunch of people, there is always a cry to ban guns. The left wants to ban all firearms in this country regardless of what they say.
Make no mistake about that, they want to ban all firearms and all private ownership. They will do it incrementally but their end goal is a complete ban. If you listen to them you can hear them saying it. One only needs to hear them say we need what Australia has to know they want private ownership to end or be so difficult that no one has anything more powerful than a pea shooter.
The issue is not the gun, it is not the background checks, and it is not the availability of guns or the alleged ease with which a person can buy one (this ease all depends on where you live).
[tip]The firearm used was not an AR 15 though anti gun nuts keep calling it that and showing pictures of one when they appeal to the masses. They want control and nothing else.[/tip]
Removing all guns will not end gun violence and the liberal model of Australia shows us that crime will actually rise as all other categories of crime did in that nation. Background checks exist and every time a person who bought a gun legally uses it to harm others liberals scream we need expanded background checks. What do they actually hope to find that government (the entity conducting the checks) does not already have access to? The government has failed in doing background checks when it fails to discover the future motives of people.
Sound ridiculous? That is what government wants you to believe it can accomplish with “expanded” background checks. It wants you to believe that it can tell what a person will do in the future if only we could look a little deeper.
The reality is most of the gun crimes committed are done by people with illegally purchased firearms and legal gun owners account for a small fraction of the murders.
It is also important to note that the government conducted a background check on the Islamic terrorist who shot up the gay night club and said he could own a gun. They said nothing in his background kept him from buying the firearm. If that is true then we just have a case of a person who had not done anything wrong deciding to do so. That happens all the time in our country though the case of legal firearms owners doing so is rare.
When these things happen we get this outcry of people who want more gun control as if restricting those who follow the law will stop those who don’t. It is more convenient to blame a gun than it is to blame the liberal moron, or in this case the Islamic terrorist, who pulled the trigger. Liberals would rather moan about one guy with a gun and claim him as the problem rather than seeing the issue was the 150 people who did not have a gun. Even if half of the club goers were carry permit holders they were banned from having their firearms in the club. Evidently the Muslim terrorist did not follow that law either.
Look, the reality is bad people do bad things and we can’t predict when they will but we can’t infringe on the rights of the law abiding as some feel good measure to make liberal bed-wetters think they are doing good. We also can’t allow liberal (and sadly some alleged conservative) politicians to take away our rights. Doing so will allow them to control us instead of us controlling them.
When they take away your means to resist they will then do as they wish, just ask some old German and Jewish folks about that.
The problem is not the firearm, it is the person using it illegally (and to some extent politicians who refuse to allow law abiding people to carry firearms). We do not ban cars or alcohol because people drink and drive. We don’t say that some person might drink and drive so he can’t own a car or buy alcohol. We don’t do these things even though more people die in alcohol related accidents than are murdered with firearms. In these cases we hold the driver responsible for his actions.
Blaming firearms for the shooting at the night club is like blaming the planes for 9/11.
I am also tired of hearing liberals tell us we don’t need these assault weapons or these weapons of war.
[note]Alan Grayson, a moron politician and wife beater from Florida, claimed that these firearms could shoot 700 rounds a minute. A semi-automatic firearm’s rate of fire depends on how fast the shooter can squeeze the trigger. To shoot 700 rounds a minute the shooter would have to squeeze the trigger almost 12 times a second and that does not include the time to change magazines. Misinformed people are easy to control and government is doing the misinforming because it wants to control people. Though in this case it is likely Grayson, who is unintelligent, does not know.[/note]
First of all, there are no assault weapons. Assault is an action and people commit that action. They use many things to do so but whatever they use is not an assault item.
Second, all firearms can be weapons of war. In fact, the musket was a weapon of war and everyone had a musket. Obviously the Founders made no distinction and neither should we.
The important words are shall not be infringed. There is no qualifier, no sentence about weapons of war or only if you need or only if government says it is ok or anything else. The words are the right of the PEOPLE (all citizens) to keep and bear arms (to have and to carry) shall not be infringed.
Remember, the people telling you that you don’t need these firearms are surrounded and protected by people who have these firearms.
How many more Islamic terror attacks are we going to allow before Obama is held accountable?
The gun is not the problem. Anti-gun politicians, Muslim terrorists and bad people are the issue. But keep pushing for gun control and one day there will be pushback and you will not like it at all.
We will not comply.
MOLON LABE
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: firearms, gun control, islam, lies, Obama, Second Amendment, terror
The Apple Does Not Fall Far
Mar 13, 2016 Political, Tyranny
Barack Obama is a big government big brother liberal progressive left wing fanatic who believes in government control over the lives of private citizens. He was raised by communists, studied and uses Rules for Radicals, and he violates the Constitution nearly every day. In short, he is un-American and the kind of person the Constitution was designed to stop.
There is a case before the court right now dealing with an Apple iPhone that was used by a few terrorists who shot up San Bernardino. It seems the feds are unable to crack the encryption on the phone, a claim I find preposterous, so the FBI wants Apple to write the code to crack the phone. The problem is, the code would affect all iPhones and make it easier for the government to demand a phone be accessed in the future.
[note]Maybe Obama should ask the Chinese or the Russians to get the data from the phone. These countries seem to be able to hack into our government on a regular basis. Better yet, maybe the government should ask Apple to teach it electronic security…[/note]
I doubt the issue at hand is the phone itself. I am sure the highly paid people at the FBI (or perhaps the NSA) could get into the phone. I mean, are we really supposed to believe that the same government hacking into systems all over the world can’t get into a phone? No, this is about setting precedence that would force companies to build backdoors into devices that government could use when it wanted to obtain data.
Obama recently made his views known when he discussed the issue. He believes that PRIVATE companies should not be able to build items government cannot access. That is the basic idea behind what Obama said. Now he laced it with sugar coating by discussing child pornography and such things because, well no one could oppose such common sense things.
Then he got to the real reason. You see, government needs to access your electronic items so it can be certain you are paying your taxes. Obama thinks that without the ability to access phones people will be walking around with Swiss bank accounts right on their devices.
As if most people have the ability to get one. But the rich certainly have them (I would not be surprised to find out many politicians had them) though I suspect they would not be foolish enough to keep that info on their phones.
While Obama thinks no citizen should have absolute privacy he carries an electronic device paid for by the taxpayers that has all kinds of encryption on it to keep it from being hacked. And while Obama thinks government should have the ability to access your information he certainly supports YOU going to jail for accessing anything held on the government’s electronic media.
They work for us but they act like they own us. Their information is very important to them so much so that Hillary Clinton set up a home brew server to route all her communications through other than government channels.
Instead of worrying about some citizen keeping a Swiss bank account on a cell phone perhaps Obama should concern himself with government officials who are hiding their misdeeds from the public.
People have a right to privacy and that right should not be infringed upon because the government can’t access data it wants. But if the court agrees with government and allows this violation of our rights perhaps we should be afforded the opportunity to redact things before they get to see them.
You know, just like they do when citizens request information…
The apple does not fall far from the tree and in the case of Obama it is a rotten apple that fell from the tree of communism.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.