The More Things Change
Jan 23, 2009 Opinion
There is really no change in DC except for which party is in power. That and how Democrats act about certain things. For instance, when Republicans were the majority the Democrats complained that they felt left out of the process even though the right wrote rules that included them. Now that the left is in charge they completely exclude the right and make no bones about it. Nancy Pelosi basically said, yeah we wrote the stimulus package because we won the election and the rules she wrote excludes Republicans. Remember that Nancy. You have full responsibility like you did for the financial meltdown but on this you will not be able to say you are blameless.
When Republicans do something wrong the Democrats make sure it is on the front pages. When Democrats do bad things they are put into positions of responsibility. Timothy Geithner did not pay his taxes. It was not a mistake, an oversite, a tax software glitch, an invasion by Martians, or an interruption by Bigfoot. The fact is he knew he was supposed to pay them and he did not. He signed papers saying he would take the money given to pay them and do so but he did not. Now he is the nominee to be the Treasury Secretary. I have heard it said on several occasions that he is the smartest man out there and the only one who can fix the mess. So, if this guy is so smart, how did he make this “mistake” and fail to pay taxes? Do you really want a person who can’t figure out his taxes running Treasury?
When George Bush was president the Democrats loved to bust his chops for deficit spending. Of course the Democrats continue to tell this lie that we had a balanced budget and a surplus of cash when Clinton left office. This is a lie. We had a deficit per the government’s numbers. A surplus means we had extra money. We owed so there could be no surplus. Still I have heard how Bush spent the “surplus” and then spent more than we had and ran up a huge deficit. I am not disputing that he spent and ran up a deficit because it is true. I do not like the increased spending but my not liking it does not mean it did not happen. Now, of course, Obama and the Democrats are spending TRILLIONS of dollars and will run up the largest deficit in our history. None of them are railing about deficit spending like they did when Bush was in power. They say it is necessary to stimulate the economy.
[note]If deficit spending or spending more money were the answer we would not be having problems because they have done nothing but spend for a very long time.[/note]
Liberals are holding hands and singing Kumbaya while telling the rest of us that we are all Americans and we need to give Obama a chance to do his job. They tell us that we all need to work together and that if we would only put aside our differences and do just that we would solve our problems. Hollywood stars are making little public service announcements about how we should be working together. Suddenly being patriotic and waving a flag is cool. For years they disavowed that behavior and discussed dissent. They told us the country was founded on dissent and that it was patriotic to dissent and oppose government [Bush]. These are the low life maggots who NEVER gave Bush a chance. In 2000 George Bush won the election and every recount conducted by the partisan media showed that. Still, liberals said he stole it. They protested at his inauguration and pelted his limo with eggs. This is how day one started and it got worse over the next 8 years. To these idiots coming together only works if their guy is in office.
I will say that they will get what they gave. Some who comment here call it whining and crying by Republicans but they fail to recognize that they acted horribly for 8 years. It is a typical method for the left. They rewrite history. However, we know how they acted and we saw more of it when Bush left town. Even Nancy Pelosi said the best thing about inauguration was watching the helicopter take Bush away. She said it felt like a 10 pound anvil lifted off her head. I thought she looked more like she got hit by a bag of nickels. I actually think it would be good if an anvil landed on her head.
One last thing. When a person from the right makes an observation about an issue involving race then he is a racist. Criticize Obama and you are a racist. Question affirmative action, racist. Just about anything will get you labeled a racist regardless of your intention or how you live your life. If you do not plug into the collective then you are a racist and that is that. But let a black guy make an absolutely racist statement and the left keeps its mouth shut. Reverend Lowery did it on inauguration day and no one from the left called him a racist or demanded an apology. Don Imus lost his job over the uproar over some comments he made but Lowery is praised. I read a comment today (I think at the WaPo) where a guy said that Rick Warren was a disgrace and should not have been there but Lowery was wonderful. This is the kind of claptrap you get from liberals. They will not condemn their own until it becomes a political liability.
Yep, we are in for an interesting 4 years. Already some of the things I said would happen are. I said that when Obama was criticized for the same things Bush did we would be called haters or told to give him a chance or that the left would embrace the very thing they attacked Bush for. I said that every criticism would be considered racist. I even said that if he won we would all be expected to get along while ignoring the behavior of the left for the last 8 years.
These people have no shame.
And the more things supposedly change, the more they stay the same.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: change, crime, hypocrisy, Obama, tax evasion
Wanted: Senator, No Experience Necessary
Dec 11, 2008 Political
It will be interesting to see the number of left wing lunatics who will rationalize Caroline Kennedy’s qualification to take the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton. Caroline Kennedy has no political experience other than she comes from a family full of people who have sponged off the government and have never worked real jobs in their lives. If they claim she learned by being there then it will contradict the argument that Hillary had gained no experience just by being the wife of the president. That is what the Obama campaign put out and what his supporters ran with (I happen to agree with that assessment).
There are a lot of folks who are really on board with the idea of Caroline Kennedy going to the Senate. They do not care that she has absolutely NO experience whatsoever. The very people who are in love with the idea of her serving are dismissing her lack of experience as insignificant and saying that it would be refreshing to have a regular person who is not a DC insider serving. These are the same morons who blasted Sarah Palin because they viewed her as unqualified. Palin’s regular, outside the beltway, persona was off putting to the elitist twerps who dug through trash to see what they could get on her. This was mostly because of fear but it shows the double standard that the left employs. They are good at it because the media are always willing accomplices when it comes to liberal hypocrisy.
One moron at Huffington said there was no comparison because Palin was running to be the next in line for the presidency and Kennedy would be one of a hundred. The reader is supposed to believe that Kennedy’s lack of experience is OK but Palin’s is not because of the seriousness of the job. This totally ignores the fact that Palin has political experience and it ignores the fact that she has more than Barack Obama or Joe Biden when it comes to executive service.
The morons who make this argument ignore the absolute fact that they supported Barack Obama with his lack of experience for the position of president. They voted for a man who has less experience than Palin while stating that she was not qualified to be next in line for the job. This is the stupidity that comes from the liberal mind. They lack the ability to use logic and to reason things out. As long as they win and can push their socialist agenda, they are happy.
As for Kennedy, I really don’t care who New York puts in that seat but I am opposed to political dynasties. The Kennedys have been in American politics for decades and it seems that more and more of them get elected and earn their livings off the backs of the taxpayers. We need to end this cycle of family members succeeding family members and put the Congress back in the hands of the people.
Does America really need another Kennedy in government? I will argue that she is unqualified but only because of the way the left went after Palin. The fact is that many are not very qualified when they are first elected. But if the left can deride the experience of Palin while ignoring the lack thereof with regard to Obama and Caroline Kennedy then it is only fitting we point this out and hold them to their own standard.
Will the hypocrisy of the left never end?
Related:
Camille Paglia
Who Is Congress To Question?
Nov 21, 2008 Political
I was not in favor of the Wall Street bailout and I am definitely not in favor of bailing out the Big Three auto makers. Having said that, I find it interesting that certain members of Congress are skeptical about the auto industry bailout. They have every right to be skeptical but they keep expressing their apprehension about lending money to companies that have not managed their finances very well.
You see, members of Congress complain that the auto makers were foolish with their money, did not have adequate business plans, produced a product that was inferior to their competitors and now they want more money to do more of the same. But the Congress is no different than the auto makers.
Congress is foolish with our money, has a terrible plan for using it, produces an inferior product and when it needs more money it gets it from us. The only difference is that Congress does not have to beg for it like the auto makers. Congress just confiscates it from us.
Congress is even critical of the executives from the Big Three who flew in corporate jets to DC for the hearings. Who do these people think they are having such luxuries? Of course, these would be the same members of Congress who own more than one home (one in their home state and one in DC), have expensive leased vehicles paid for entirely by the taxpayers. The car, insurance, fuel, the whole shooting match. We even provide her majesty queen Nancy Pelosi with a plane to fly back and forth from California.
So, who do the members of Congress think they are? What gives them the right to question the executives who have done nothing more than those who are supposed to lead this country?
Tags: auto makers, Congress, hypocrisy
You Can’t Make Things Up Mr. Obama
Sep 10, 2008 Political
Barack Hussein Obama has been in a tizzy since a girl beat him up and he has been trying to regain his mojo for the past two weeks. In campaign appearances this week he said that McCain and Palin were being untruthful about her statement that she said no thanks to the bridge to nowhere. As an aside, she ran on the idea that money committed to it should remain committed until the problem was evaluated. When it was clear that the federal government was not interested in committing more money to it she decided that there were more pressing issues in Alaska and used the money for other infrastructure items. BTW, 65% of Alaska is under federal government control so a lot of federal money goes there.
Back to the point. Obama chided McCain and Palin and said “you can’t make stuff up.” He repeated this several times for emphasis. Basically, he said that McCain and Palin were liars and making up stories. Obama expects truth and I have to agree with him; you can’t make stuff up. So let us take a look at how well he has followed that line of thought.
Barack Obama said “I have never been a Muslim.”
The reality is, school records from his time in Indonesia show that he was registered, in both schools he attended, as a Muslim. Hey Barry, you can’t make stuff up.
Barack Obama said he never practiced Islam. He also said he never attended a Mosque.
The reality is that Barack Obama practiced Islam as a child. He attended a Christian school, was registered as a Muslim and had to read the Koran and go to Mosque. People who knew him said that he attended Mosque. Additionally, in his book, Dreams of My Father, Obama wrote about how he got in trouble for making faces in Koran studies. One does not study the Koran if one is not a Muslim. Obama is also able to recite the opening lines of Arabic call to prayer and does it with a good accent. Hey Barry, you can’t make stuff up.
Before radical Obama followers attack me for mentioning Islam and Muslims, let me quote the Jerusalem Post because I agree with it.
OBAMA’S HAVING been born and raised a Muslim and having left the faith to become a Christian make him neither more nor less qualified to become president of the United States. But if he was born and raised a Muslim and is now hiding that fact, this points to a major deceit, a fundamental misrepresentation about himself that has profound implications about his character and his suitability as president.
Barack Obama said he has always been a Christian.
The reality is that Barack Obama was a Muslim at one time. I have shown this and the JP article goes into greater detail leaving no doubt that this is the case. Additionally, Obama has stated on a number of occasions that he converted to Christianity in the 1990s after attending services at Reverend Wright’s church. If he converted in 1990 then the youngest age he could have been was 28 depending on when in the year he converted. This begs the question; what was he before he converted? He did not say he became a Christian as in he really had no religious affiliation. He said he converted so it is only fair to ask; from what? Hey Barry, you can’t make stuff up.
Barack Obama said he would accept and use public funds for his campaign. In fact, he would “aggressively pursue an agreement” [for both candidates to accept public funds] with whomever was his opponent.
The reality is that Barack Obama did not aggressively pursue public funding. He decided to reject it with the expectation that he would continue to bring in huge amounts of cash from donors (how is that working out). Hey Barry, you can’t make stuff up.
Obama said; “Selma got me born.”
The reality is that Selma happened 4 years after he was born so it had no affect on his birth. Hey Barry, you can’t make stuff up.
Obama called the money Edwards and Clinton received from unions “special interest ” money as a way to show them in the back pockets of special interests.
The reality is that Obama now gets a boatload of money from unions but now he calls them representatives of working people and he is thrilled to have their money support. Hey Barry, you can’t make stuff up.
Obama said [to a union audience]; “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare coverage. That’s what I’d like to see.”
The reality is that during one of the primary debates Obama said [about healthcare]; “I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer.” Hey Barry, you can’t make stuff up.
Obama, in 2004, ruled out running for national office.
I think we all know the reality of that one. Hey Barry, you can’t make stuff up.
I think this is sufficient and by now you get the point. None of his toadies will see the contradiction and I am willing to bet at least one of them will defend him in the comments.
Additional sources:
The Hill | Audacity of Deception and Hypocrisy | Haaretz
Tags: hypocrisy, lies, Obama, phony claims
Citizen Held To Higher Standard Than Maryland Governor
Aug 7, 2008 Political
A Maryland man, Walter Abbott, was arrested earlier this year for sending an email to Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley threatening to “choke the life out of him. Abbott is a business owner who is losing work because of illegal immigrants. He took exception to the governor’s pro illegal immigrant stance and support for CASA de Maryland. In the email Abbott stated:
“If I ever got close enough, I’d wrap my hands around your throat and choke the life out of you, you piece of sh*t American sellout.” Baltimore Examiner
Abbott was charged with threatening a public official and conveying a threat. His initial bond was $2 million but it was reduced. He was placed on home detention and that was eventually removed and he was allowed to work, with stipulations, prior to his trial.
His trial was to begin yesterday but has now been postponed until October. Abbott faces up to six years in jail and a $5,000 fine for his threat.
Given that the Governor has police officers around him all the time, it is unlikely that Abbott could have ever acted up the threat and his claims are that he was blowing off steam over losing work because of illegals. This will play out in court as it should but is this a case of hypocrisy?
Governor Martin O’Malley is a hothead and has been known to express his anger. In fact, O’Malley made a public threat to two radio show hosts, on the air, for everyone to hear. In 2002, after a family was firebombed and killed by a drug dealer who the family had reported, O’Malley was getting beaten up by the media. He was the mayor of Baltimore at the time. He got into his car after a meeting and heard the discussion between Rob Douglas and Chip franklin then of WBAL (both have taken other jobs). He became angry and ordered his driver to take him to the studio.
O’Malley demanded to address the issue on air to the surprised staff at the station and was afforded that opportunity. He got into some heated discussions with the hosts and took particular offense when Douglas remarked that if the residents keep voting in the same nitwits year after year they get what they deserve.
O’Malley decided that after the exchange it was a good time to leave and he parted with this:
“On that note, that probably is a good way to exit,” he said. “And gentlemen, if you enjoyed that, come outside after the show, and I’ll kick your ass.” Baltimore Sun
What is the difference between this threat by a public official and the one toward a public official? O’Malley is just as wrong in threatening the show hosts as Abbott was for threatening O’Malley. O’Malley was not arrested, held on a $2 million bond, and then placed on home detention. O’Malley never faced six years in jail and a $5,000 fine. In fact, he went on to win the Gubernatorial election.
O’Malley is a public official and one expects better behavior from those elected to lead. Regardless, how can they punish Abbott for his threat while ignoring the threat of the then mayor? It is a double standard and the whole issue smacks of hypocrisy.
O’Malley has armed guards and the show hosts did not so the threat to them was even more likely to be carried out than the threat to O’Malley. If O’Malley’s defense is that it was just a comment of frustration then they must allow for that in Abbott’s case.
Personally, I wish Chip Franklin would have taken him up on the offer because I think Franklin would have beaten him half to death and shut that smug mouth of his up. I would have paid money to see Franklin kick O’Malley’s ass all over Baltimore. [Note to law enforcement: This is not a threat from me. I am merely expanding upon O’Malley’s desire for the fight and what I would like to have seen as a result of it]
I hope the defense brings this up in court. Even if it does not make much difference in the trial it would be nice to have them point out the blatant double standard and demonstrate how the elected elite get away with those things for which we are held accountable.
Tags: chip franklin, hypocrisy, maryland governor, O'Malley, rob douglas, threat, trial, wbal