Maryland Governor Lies Through His Teeth
Jan 27, 2008 Political
The history of Maryland politics is full of Democratic Governors. There have been 36 Governors elected since 1838 (the year the people began voting for them) and only 7 of them have been Republicans. In the last 41 years only two Republicans have held that office so it is fair to say that most of the policies and bad times have been the result of Democrats, especially since Democrats have ruled the legislature forever.
In 2002 the State elected Robert Ehrlich who inherited a budget that was in the red and a built in structural deficit. What this means is that the Democratic Legislature enacted spending bills that were signed into law by a Democratic Governor and those bills required that the state spend money on various programs. The bills never secured a funding source so the state was left with a structural deficit. Ehrlich eliminated the deficit and left 2 billion dollars in surplus. During his four years in office he tried to pass a slots bill that would allow gaming which would help reduce the structural deficit and this was soundly rejected by all the Democrats including current Governor Martin O’Malley.
In 2006 the Democrats in Maryland exercised their strength (more than 2:1 in numbers) and removed Ehrlich from office replacing him with a slick talking liar named O’Malley. O’Malley has been running around saying that he inherited a deficit which is a lie. He inherited a budget surplus which he promptly spent paying off the people who bought him during the election. The deficit he actually inherited was the structural deficit that was the result of Democratic incompetence. O’Malley though, continues to tell people that the last Governor caused and left all the problems and this is a flat out lie.
O’Malley called a special session where he and his Democratic colleagues raised taxes in Maryland. They did not just raise a tax or two, they raised every tax imaginable in the largest all at once tax increase in the history of any state in the US. This was done, according to O’Malley. to address the deficit he inherited from the last administration. O’Malley made it sound as if Ehrlich had run us into the ground and he had to raise taxes to save the day when in fact he had to raise taxes to pay the bills incurred by the Democratic legislature.
Interestingly, the current Governor raised taxes to the tune of about 1.3 billion dollars to address a deficit of 1.8 billion but then he and his Democratic toadies in the legislature added 1.5 billion dollars in spending which, in effect, makes the tax increase a zero gain. We will still have a deficit.
And get this, part of the budget deficit plan is based upon the state getting, you guessed it, slot machines. However, instead of the legislature passing a bill and the Governor signing it, they have decided to put it to referendum on the 2008 ballot. This means slot machines will be voted on by the public and will, if passed, become part of the state constitution. If this does not pass the state will need to raise taxes again. I wonder if it would be too much to ask them to put tax increases to referendum. No, if it is an important decision they don’t actually want any constituent input. Remember, if your vote counted they would not let you do it.
For his part, Governor O’Malley has been playing the victim of a bad past administration (playing the victim is what liberals do best) and he has been acting as if he did all he could to fix this without raising taxes. He made a few symbolic cuts and decided not to fill about 500 vacant state jobs but the cuts are negligible and they are certainly not the best that cold be done.
Maryland will soon be in the doldrums of a recession because of the burden placed upon the citizens by the Governor and the Democrats in the legislature. There is a huge movement under way where many Marylanders (particularly Republicans) are moving to Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Others are shopping in those states to avoid Maryland taxes and still others are finding ways to invest money in a fashion that will prevent Maryland from stealing it. US Savings Bonds are not subject to state and local income taxes and smart tax advisers can provide valuable information.
Couple this with the number of businesses that are leaving the state r that have decided not to come here and Maryland is in for a real problem. O’Malley figures he will be part of a Clinton administration and is not worried about what he does to rape this state or the poor he claims to want to help. He is unaffected by what he does because his residence is paid for by taxpayers, his electricity is paid for by taxpayers, his groceries are paid for by taxpayers, his transportation is paid for by taxpayers and all his other household expenses are paid for by those of us who were raped by the Governor. He has no bills, he has no financial problems and he is able to live quite well off the backs of the citizens of this once great state.
Martin O’Malley is a poor leader, he is a cry baby who whines about everything and no matter what happens he never takes responsibility because it is always someone else’s fault.
Come to think of it, he would fit right in with the Clintons.
Tags: deception, governor, liar, Maryland, tax increases
Rule Number 1; Bill Clinton Lies
Jan 19, 2008 Political
Rule Number 2, If you ever start to believe him refer to Rule Number 1.
Bill Clinton is in Nevada fresh off his defense of a lawsuit designed to disenfranchise voters and the Clinton campaign attempts to screw the union workers of the union that endorsed her opponent, B. Hussein Obama. Today is caucus day and lo and behold Bill Clinton has witnessed voter suppression first hand. He even has Chelsea to back him up because no one would want to call Web Hubbell’s daughter a liar. Here is what Clinton alleges [from The Politico]:
There is this whole business of the new politics. Well I got a taste of the new politics today. We need a new politics where we all love each other. You’ve heard all that. There’s a radio ad up in the northern part of Nevada telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn’t sound like the new politics to me.
Today when my daughter and I were wandering through the hotel, and all these culinary workers were mobbing us telling us they didn’t care what the union told them to do, they were gonna caucus for Hillary.
There was a representative of the organization following along behind us going up to everybody who said that, saying ‘if you’re not gonna vote for our guy were gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you can’t be there.’ So, is this the new politics? I haven’t seen anything like that in America in 35 years. So I will say it again – they think they’re better than you.
OK, let me be the one to say it, this is BS. Clinton did not witness any such thing and he is lying to try to show there are voter problems so it can cast doubt should Hillary lose. Bill is lying. No, I was not there but he is lying. He would have us believe that a union representative is so stupid that he would say such a thing in Clinton’s presence knowing that Clinton is looking for any reason to cry foul. Bill would have us believe that a union is forcing its employees to all vote for one person or they will be punished despite the fact that the employees can just ask for the day off. Bill would also have us believe that there was a huge crowd of people saying they would defy the union. If the union is as Bill describes it, why would the employees say anything? Wouldn’t they just be quiet and vote how they wished?
Clinton is a pathological liar and he is lying about this whole episode. What amazes me is that he is taking the leadership of a union to task based solely on the fact that it did not endorse Hillary. If they had endorsed Hillary, Bill Clinton would not have personally “witnessed” any of this. He is making it up now to make the union leadership appear to be goons. I wonder why he would do this after all the years that the unions supported him and his wife as well as the rest of the Democrats. Why is Bill now indicating that union leadership is nothing more than a bunch of thugs? He has not called the leaders of the unions that back Hillary thugs and for that matter, neither has Senator Obama. Obama has not called any of the union workers or leadership names or accused them of wrong doing regardless of whom they have endorsed. The Clinton campaign, particularly Bill, is the only entity to cast the unions in a bad light.
This is what happens when you do not play ball the Clinton way. You cross this crime family and they have it out for you. You don’t endorse them or if you disagree with them they are ready to chew you up and spit you out. They are a well oiled mean machine that knows how to use the politics of destruction against anyone who does not march in lock-step to the Clinton cadence. This is why there are so many people who speak on the condition of anonymity when they discuss Hillary. These people are afraid of repercussions from the Clinton Crime Family with Billy the “Don” in the lead and Queen Hillary “the Destroyer” on the warpath. People in politics know how the Clintons can destroy a career and how they can cast doubts about anything anyone does.
Bill Clinton is a liar. I would be happy to inform him of this to his face and let him know that I call BS on him and his lies. Maybe the MSM and the people who are in a love fest with these idiots will not do it but I have no problem. Bill Clinton is a confirmed liar who has proven he will say and do anything to win and to stay out of trouble. He lied to the nation and he lied under oath. He has made a lifelong habit of lying and he cannot be trusted.
Bill, you are a liar. Hillary is Satan.
ADDENDUM: This should pretty much shut the mouths of the idiots at Kos who say Republicans always cry about voter fraud. Bill Clinton is crying about it FROM HIS OWN PARTY.
One other question, how would Bill feel if the union bosses refused to let workers vote in the Republican Caucus?
Tags: bill clinton, chelsea, fraud, liar, union
Lying Meatbrain Does it Again
Jan 3, 2008 General
The lying Terry Meatbrain is at it again. Terry likes to call people liars if they do not use the exact words in a quote or title or if it is within his definition of a lie. He attacks a lot of people and calls them liars even when their writing shows they made no attempt to distort the truth. Terry Meatbrain, on the other hand, loves to cherry pick and tell outright lies. He has “quoted” me as saying something when the words he accuses me of are not even in my post. But there is no lie that Terry Meatbrain will not tell. Case in point. His latest post is entitled:
Bush tells troops to go stuff it
The president never said those words.
There is no lie that Meatbrain will not tell
There is no lie that Meatbrain will not tell
There is no lie that Meatbrain will not tell
This is the same thing that Terry accused Jim Hoft of here
So Terry Meatbrain, I have a few questions:
Where exactly did the President use the words Stuff it?
When did George Bush tell the troops to stuff it using those words?
I will sit back and wait for your response liar. And when you figure there is no response because you lied, I demand that you apologize to the president.
Folks, don’t hold your breath waiting for this cretin to admit he lied or to apologize. Terry Meat brain will more than likely attack me and say I am a coward and a liar because that is what he does. This is the problem with socialist moonbats. They distort the truth and they outright lie and then they make excuses or lie about lying.
OK lying moonbat, it is your turn to explain your deceitful ways. Have at it, coward.
Author note: This post is a parody of how Meat Brain writes and attacks others (and resembles the linked post for that reason). It is designed to show that he is guilty of exactly what he accuses others. In reality, I know what he meant by the post but I am holding him to the same standard to which he holds others.
So answer up Terry…
Update: Terry is already telling people they are idiots because they asked him to show where the president said Stuff It.
Clinton Doubletalk
Dec 23, 2007 Political
B. Hussein Obama said that he has more former Clinton (Bill) foreign policy advisers working for him than Hillary does and that this should show people something. While this claim might or might not be true the Clinton camp felt it was necessary to answer the charge. I can understand why because even if Obama does not have more of them he has a significant number of them and this really should cause people to ask; if she is so wonderful why are her hubby’s former advisers backing her rival?
The Hillary Clinton camp could have answered this charge in a number of ways. They could have ignored it (which is a non answer, really) they could indicated that people do not vote for advisers, which is what they did and if they had stopped there, they might have made the point. Instead, Hillary went one step further by describing the large number of advisers that she does have.
“This is not a campaign between lists of advisers,” Clinton told reporters in a packed diner. “This is a campaign between real people with experience and qualifications to become president on day one.”
~snip~
“Why is the national security adviser of Bill Clinton, the secretary of the Navy of Bill Clinton, the assistant secretary of state for Bill Clinton, why are all these people endorsing me?” Obama said. “They apparently believe that my vision of foreign policy is better suited for the 21st century.”
Clinton rejected the comment’s premise.
“Honestly, it’s a silly question. We have hundreds of people’s support, not just people who were in my husband’s administration, but people from all over the country who have expertise.”
She added: “It’s important to pick the person who can make the best decision, who is tested and proven as a leader.” My Way News
Hillary contends that this is not a campaign about advisers but about experience and then she goes on to say how many advisers she has. If this is a campaign about experience, as she said, then she should have expanded the experience part. Instead, she expanded that which she just said was not important. She said that people do not vote for advisers and then told everyone how many advisers she has.
The reason for this is quite simple, Hillary Clinton does not have the experience she wants everyone to believe she has. Obama has held elected office longer, Obama was against the war in Iraq (though he was not in the Senate) and he voted against the Iran resolution. No matter what one thinks about these issues, Obama and Hillary were opposites on them and if the Democratic base is using the war as the bellwether (this issue is why they say they won the election) than Obama is clearly more in tune with the base than Hillary is. This might be because she triangulated in order to appeal to the general election voters (she was supposed to win the primaries, hands down).
This is more Clinton double speak. They are already down playing the Iowa caucus and lowering expectations. They are doing the same in Hew Hampshire. It is true that Hillary is in trouble in those states but there are reasons for this ploy. They will be able to say they expected the losses if she in fact loses one or both states and if she wins both they can say she is the second coming of the comeback kid. They will say that Iowa and NH were always going to be tough and she never figured to win but she is the comeback kid like her hubby. The reality is, Hillary and her people have been predicting she was the inevitable winner for a year because she held huge leads for most of it.
I can’t figure how she has any support because she talks out of both sides of her face and she has not been truthful for years (remember, she said she never thought about running for president and then jumped right in the race). She has the highest negative ratings of any candidate and she is very polarizing. I might not agree with Obama’s politics but at least he appears to be a warm and charming person.
Hillary is toast and I cannot wait for her to lose so that we can finally rid this country of the vermin known as Clinton.
Hillary Rodham, Arrogant Con Woman
Sep 27, 2007 Uncategorized
I have written on a number of occasions about Hillary Clinton and her insatiable appetite for power. She has lusted for power from the early days of her husband’s political career and to this day she thinks of nothing else. Of course she tells people lots of things and she verbalizes all the things that people want to hear but her goal is to get more power. Hillary Clinton will say whatever she thinks needs to be said and she will do whatever she thinks needs to be done in order to get elected. Hillary Rodham is much like politicians of a century ago who, unencumbered by the electronic age, said what people wanted to hear and often delivering different versions or opposite opinions depending upon where they were. They could always attribute any reporting of it as a misquote. It worked well in a time when people in differing states often knew little about what was going on across the country.
The age of instant communication changed all that because claims that would have passed unnoticed years ago are scrutinized and compared to other things that candidates said. This is also true for the legacy media. Dam Rather would have gotten away with his biased reporting a few decades ago. Instead, he ran into a wall of people who could instantly debunk his efforts.
Hillary continues to be a politician who will say whatever is needed regardless of what her position was at any other time. Either she has not fully grasped the power of the electronic age or she is so arrogant that she believes that she can say what she wants and get away with it. I am banking on the latter. She, and her husband for that matter, has gotten away with so much that she believes that nothing she says or does has consequences. In the event she is caught in a problem there is always the Vast Right Wing conspiracy upon which to place the blame. It looks to me like Hillary Rodham starts each day as if no one had ever heard anything she has said. She starts as if whatever she says will be fresh and accepted without question. Last night’s debate was yet another shining example.
During the debate, Tim Russert asked if it would be OK to torture a terrorist if there was an imminent threat to Americans (they always use the nuclear bomb is about to go off and this guys knows where it is). Rodham contradicted the opinion of her husband by saying that this cannot be done under any circumstances; “It cannot be American policy, period.” That is pretty clear. We cannot, according to her, torture the guy who knows where the bomb that is about to explode is located. She even indicated that she would have to talk to Bill about it, since his opinion differs (and therefore must be wrong).
She received applause for her answer and true to form there was no follow up to challenge her on her change of heart. You see, not very long ago Hillary Rodham said that it would be OK to torture under that circumstance.
Last October, Clinton told the Daily News: “If we’re going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law.”
She said then the “ticking time bomb” scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.
“In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable,” she said. NY Daily News
In a year’s time (and before she announced her candidacy) Hillary Rodham went from the we need to do it tough girl to the absolutely not panderer. Last October, she was preparing for her reelection to the Senate which was really just a prelude to her run for the White House. I indicated that she had those plans for a long time even though she denied such silly things. When she needed to begin convincing Americans that she can hold the office (and before an election) she was tough and would do anything to save American lives. Last night she was before a national audience and only a portion of that audience can vote for her. Hillary made sure she said what needed to be said to the liberals who will be voting in the primary. Should she succeed in winning that nomination she will be tougher on these things and, no doubt, take a number of positions. She will take whatever position she thinks will make the most people vote for her.
She voted for the war and her talk at the time was how she could support the President and how Hussein had WMD and had to go. When the going in Iraq got tough, Hillary was lied to about the WMD and George Bush messed up the war. He got us into it and it will be up to super Hill to get us out. She would not take Bill’s last name when she lived in Arkansas but when she found out that the conservative base down there did not appreciate women who did that, she miraculously changed her last name. I guess they figured if she was too ashamed of him to have his name he was not worth their vote. She traded her principle for votes. Rodham stated that if Bush would not bring the troops home she would do it when she was elected. Last night she (and most of the others) could not commit to a time when the troops would be brought home. They might be there past the next president’s watch. There are many, many examples of Hillary Rodham saying one thing one place and another thing at a different place.
Hillary Rodham is Satan in the flesh and she will say whatever it takes to get elected and then she will run this country in to the ground (and blame it on George Bush). Hillary has begun to act more like Kerry with the Flip-Flops. Though I would have thought she would have learned from his problems, it is obvious that her arrogance allows her to do what she wants and to believe Americans are stupid enough to fall for her con game.
The problem is, about half of them are…
Tags: con job, flip flop, Hillary, Iraq, Kerry, liar, Political Commentary, torture, war