Wednesday, September 30, 2009
... this is when George W. Bush gets to crow
Sorry, The Nation.
Sorry, The American Conservative.
You've both been wrong 'bout the hated Patriot Act for a long, long time.
Here's proof:
Patriot Act helped foil New York terror plot
The arrest and indictment of Najibullah Zazi on charges of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction was made possible by the "roving wiretaps" allowed by the Patriot Act, which was signed into law in 2001 by President George W. Bush.
Read the rest here.
Sorry, The American Conservative.
You've both been wrong 'bout the hated Patriot Act for a long, long time.
Here's proof:
Patriot Act helped foil New York terror plot
The arrest and indictment of Najibullah Zazi on charges of conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction was made possible by the "roving wiretaps" allowed by the Patriot Act, which was signed into law in 2001 by President George W. Bush.
Read the rest here.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Une question ...
A growing gaggle of famed Hollywood types are lining up -- and putting their names on petitions -- to protest Roman Polanski's detention in Switzerland.
For those who've been living in a cave:
Back in 1973, Polanski plied a 13-year-old girl with drugs and alcohol; he had vaginal and anal sex with her; the girl in question told a court of law that the sex was "non-consensual"; and Polanski agreed in open court that he would answer for his crime of having sex with an underage girl. Then he fled to Europe ...
I could go on and on detailing the, well, details of the U.S.'s case against one Roman Polanski (a confirmed pervert). Instead, I'll ask an important question of the artsy-fartsy types who think Ol' Roman didn't do nothing wrong:
If Roman Polanksi was a Catholic priest --- and NOT an award-wining/famed movie-director --- who was wanted on a thirty-year-old child-rape warrant, who among you would still be defending him?
Hmmmmmmmm?!
For those who've been living in a cave:
Back in 1973, Polanski plied a 13-year-old girl with drugs and alcohol; he had vaginal and anal sex with her; the girl in question told a court of law that the sex was "non-consensual"; and Polanski agreed in open court that he would answer for his crime of having sex with an underage girl. Then he fled to Europe ...
I could go on and on detailing the, well, details of the U.S.'s case against one Roman Polanski (a confirmed pervert). Instead, I'll ask an important question of the artsy-fartsy types who think Ol' Roman didn't do nothing wrong:
If Roman Polanksi was a Catholic priest --- and NOT an award-wining/famed movie-director --- who was wanted on a thirty-year-old child-rape warrant, who among you would still be defending him?
Hmmmmmmmm?!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009
The case for still saying "NO!"
To my libertarian friends who insist that violence will end and federal coffers will be filled when drugs are finally legalized, please check out this letter from the current print National Review:
In his September 21 review of Ryan Grim’s book This Is Your Country on Drugs, Kyle Smith says the author "makes a largely persuasive case . . . that law-enforcement efforts don’t much alter the overall supply" of drugs. Well, let’s see. Under traditional economic theory, if you reduce the costs of production and distribution, decrease the barriers to entry in the market, and simplify marketing and sales, prices should drop and consumption should increase. Why is that not true in this case?
One reason, of course, is that drug dealers are criminals — and if drugs were legalized, they would still be criminals. Even setting aside the moral stigma, no legitimate businessman would dare to sell drugs for fear of tort liability. When you consider how much tobacco companies have to pay in damages, and how much more dangerous than tobacco many drugs are, only a complete and utter fool would enter the business openly. A single judgment from a vengeful jury could wipe out a decade of profit.
So the same criminal gangs that currently control the drug trade would continue to do so, only now they would be dodging the process server instead of the constable. They would still use violence to protect their operations from competition (and tax collectors and tort lawyers), and they would still maintain an extralegal existence based on bribery and intimidation. And yet, whether or not they reduced their prices, they would sell more product, because they could do it without hiding from the police.
In other words, by legalizing drugs, you would take a preexisting criminal organization, put it effectively beyond reach of the law, increase its revenues, and decrease its expenses. Why exactly do Smith and Grim think this would be a good idea?
Alfred J. Duncan
Syracuse, N.Y.
That, mes amis, is the best anti-legalization argument I've heard in a long, long time!
In his September 21 review of Ryan Grim’s book This Is Your Country on Drugs, Kyle Smith says the author "makes a largely persuasive case . . . that law-enforcement efforts don’t much alter the overall supply" of drugs. Well, let’s see. Under traditional economic theory, if you reduce the costs of production and distribution, decrease the barriers to entry in the market, and simplify marketing and sales, prices should drop and consumption should increase. Why is that not true in this case?
One reason, of course, is that drug dealers are criminals — and if drugs were legalized, they would still be criminals. Even setting aside the moral stigma, no legitimate businessman would dare to sell drugs for fear of tort liability. When you consider how much tobacco companies have to pay in damages, and how much more dangerous than tobacco many drugs are, only a complete and utter fool would enter the business openly. A single judgment from a vengeful jury could wipe out a decade of profit.
So the same criminal gangs that currently control the drug trade would continue to do so, only now they would be dodging the process server instead of the constable. They would still use violence to protect their operations from competition (and tax collectors and tort lawyers), and they would still maintain an extralegal existence based on bribery and intimidation. And yet, whether or not they reduced their prices, they would sell more product, because they could do it without hiding from the police.
In other words, by legalizing drugs, you would take a preexisting criminal organization, put it effectively beyond reach of the law, increase its revenues, and decrease its expenses. Why exactly do Smith and Grim think this would be a good idea?
Alfred J. Duncan
Syracuse, N.Y.
That, mes amis, is the best anti-legalization argument I've heard in a long, long time!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
"You lie!"
Pssst ... U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson was telling the truth when he said the Prez of the U.S.A. ain't tellin' the truth vis-à-vis health care -- er, health insurance -- reform ... Pass it on!
It is a good thing that other congressmen did not follow Rep. Joe Wilson’s lead. If they yelled out every time President Obama said something untrue about health care, they would quickly find themselves growing hoarse.
By our count, the president made more than 20 inaccurate claims in his speech to Congress. We have excluded several comments that are deeply misleading but not outright false. (For example: Obama pledged not to tap the Medicare trust fund to pay for reform. But there is no money in that “trust fund,” anyway, so the pledge is meaningless.) Even so, we may have missed one or more false statements by the president. Our failure to include one of his comments in the following list should not be taken to constitute an endorsement of its accuracy, let alone wisdom.
Read the rest here.
It is a good thing that other congressmen did not follow Rep. Joe Wilson’s lead. If they yelled out every time President Obama said something untrue about health care, they would quickly find themselves growing hoarse.
By our count, the president made more than 20 inaccurate claims in his speech to Congress. We have excluded several comments that are deeply misleading but not outright false. (For example: Obama pledged not to tap the Medicare trust fund to pay for reform. But there is no money in that “trust fund,” anyway, so the pledge is meaningless.) Even so, we may have missed one or more false statements by the president. Our failure to include one of his comments in the following list should not be taken to constitute an endorsement of its accuracy, let alone wisdom.
Read the rest here.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Bad news for Barry
If ever there was proof that President B. Hussein Obama needs to start anew
vis-à-vis Health Care Reform (er, Health Insurance Reform), well, there's this:
Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.
vis-à-vis Health Care Reform (er, Health Insurance Reform), well, there's this:
Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, September 28, 2009
Re: Left-Wing Tools
When he was on the campaign trail in '08, B. Hussein Obama made a promise that the general public would have "five days" to review important legislation on the White House's Web site before he ever signed it into law. Keep that in mind whilst you read this:
The whole health care reform -- er, health insurance reform -- thing is rapidly coming to a head. Two Members of Congress, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) and Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), have sponsored a bill (H Res 554) in response, which mandates that Members of Congress spend 72 hours cogitating upon "non-emergency" bills before they actually vote on the damn things.
Right up Obama's alley, right?! WRONG!!!
Walden and Baird didn't get nowhere when they tried to push their bill through official Congressional channels. Thus, they were forced to present their bill to the whole House of Representatives in a "discharge petition." (Just so you know, you folks who slept through Poly-Sci, when a majority of U.S. House Members - 218 - put their name on a discharge petition, it automatically gets a vote, no matter what.)
Walden and Baird's "discharge petition" is getting lots of attention, just as it got lots of co-sponsors (both Democrat and Republican). What it ain't gettin', however, is any closer to passage; and one can only wonder WHY President B. Hussein ain't puttin' his full weight behind a bill that MORE than what he promised when he was on the campaign trail. (Looks like yet ANOTHER in a LONG line of broken Obama promises, n'est-ce pas?!)
All that said, here's a question that needs answering:
TN U.S. Reps Steve Cohen and Lincoln Davis (both Democrats) co-sponsored H Res 554; but why have they (STEADFASTLY) refused to affix their names to the discharge petion that'd bring said bill to the floor of the U.S. House?!
Sorry, folks, but I asked that question already knowing the answer. Cohen and Davis haven't signed the H Res 554 Discharge Petition because, well, they're both left-wing tools who do whatever the fuck House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (America's Number One Left-Wing Tool) tells 'em to do.
So there.
The whole health care reform -- er, health insurance reform -- thing is rapidly coming to a head. Two Members of Congress, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) and Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), have sponsored a bill (H Res 554) in response, which mandates that Members of Congress spend 72 hours cogitating upon "non-emergency" bills before they actually vote on the damn things.
Right up Obama's alley, right?! WRONG!!!
Walden and Baird didn't get nowhere when they tried to push their bill through official Congressional channels. Thus, they were forced to present their bill to the whole House of Representatives in a "discharge petition." (Just so you know, you folks who slept through Poly-Sci, when a majority of U.S. House Members - 218 - put their name on a discharge petition, it automatically gets a vote, no matter what.)
Walden and Baird's "discharge petition" is getting lots of attention, just as it got lots of co-sponsors (both Democrat and Republican). What it ain't gettin', however, is any closer to passage; and one can only wonder WHY President B. Hussein ain't puttin' his full weight behind a bill that MORE than what he promised when he was on the campaign trail. (Looks like yet ANOTHER in a LONG line of broken Obama promises, n'est-ce pas?!)
All that said, here's a question that needs answering:
TN U.S. Reps Steve Cohen and Lincoln Davis (both Democrats) co-sponsored H Res 554; but why have they (STEADFASTLY) refused to affix their names to the discharge petion that'd bring said bill to the floor of the U.S. House?!
Sorry, folks, but I asked that question already knowing the answer. Cohen and Davis haven't signed the H Res 554 Discharge Petition because, well, they're both left-wing tools who do whatever the fuck House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (America's Number One Left-Wing Tool) tells 'em to do.
So there.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, September 28, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Know what grinds my gears?
Tennessee's "native son" Al Gore is now officially sucking -- big time -- at the federal government's teat. His teat-sucking should make taxpayers everywhere very, very mad. To wit:
What’s the most laughably outlandish angle of this story?
That the U.S. Government is loaning Nobel laureate Al Gore and investment bank Kleiner Perkins $529 million to build a car, and -
It’s a hybrid electric sports model, and -
It will cost $89,000 a copy, and -
It will be made in Finland.
Finland?!
Didn't the UAW endorse Al "Big Daddy" Gore back in '00 'cause he, supposedly, was gonna protect U.S. auto-makin' jobs? How are said jobs protected when the U.S. is subsidizing car-makin' in Finland?
What’s the most laughably outlandish angle of this story?
That the U.S. Government is loaning Nobel laureate Al Gore and investment bank Kleiner Perkins $529 million to build a car, and -
It’s a hybrid electric sports model, and -
It will cost $89,000 a copy, and -
It will be made in Finland.
Finland?!
Didn't the UAW endorse Al "Big Daddy" Gore back in '00 'cause he, supposedly, was gonna protect U.S. auto-makin' jobs? How are said jobs protected when the U.S. is subsidizing car-makin' in Finland?
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, September 25, 2009
Feels soooo good to be Right (and correct)
What I said early last year:
Denizens of the far-left crowed when a recent National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran halted its nuclear-weaponization program in 2003. Bush's could no longer use Tehran's "nuclear arms-seeking mullahs" as a bugaboo with which to hype possible military action in Iran.
As I stated when the NIE was released, only a fool would believe that Iran is not trying to build nuclear weapons. First of all, the Iranians are busily spinning uranium like nobody's business, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has delivered dozens of speeches in which he's stated that it is his country's destiny to have nuclear weapons. As Barney Fife might say, 2 and 2 makes 4.
News today:
Iran's newly revealed uranium enrichment plant is a heavily guarded, still-unfinished underground facility in the arid mountains near the holy city of Qom that will be able to produce nuclear fuel — or the payload for atomic warheads, Western intelligence officials and diplomats said Friday.
The only folks on earth who truly understand the threat posed by Iran's nukes are the Israelis. Indeed, compare Bibi Netanyahu's realist UN General Assembly address to B. Hussein Obama's Utopian kiss-ass-fest before the same body.
Obama's "let's talk 'bout it" window of diplomacy vis-à-vis Iran's mullah's is rapidly closing. Bibi's speech gives us every indication that things in Persia are about to come to a violent head.
Bill Clinton lamented that he was never really "tested" with a true international crisis. Well, Obama's about to get a true international crisis, less than a year after he took office, and it'll be a test like none recent presidents have seen. I only pray he has enough you-know-whats to handle it.
UPDATE (from NationalReview.com):
Iran Lied, Our Government Knew It, and Pretended Otherwise
Wow. Since January, we've sought re-engagement with Iran, soft-pedaled criticism of a brutal crackdown of Iranian civilians, and scuttled missile defense ...
... and now we learn that they've been hiding a second nuclear facility the whole time, and that the U.S. government and its allies have known about this facility for a number of years, and we've pretended, in pursuing this re-engagement, that they could be trusted. And for months, we've made outreach after outreach, all aimed at establishing a relationship of trust with a government that lied to us, and continues to lie to us.
Way to go, Mr. President. Although I guess the Iranians' disinterest in the embassy Fourth of July parties makes more sense now, huh?
Denizens of the far-left crowed when a recent National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran halted its nuclear-weaponization program in 2003. Bush's could no longer use Tehran's "nuclear arms-seeking mullahs" as a bugaboo with which to hype possible military action in Iran.
As I stated when the NIE was released, only a fool would believe that Iran is not trying to build nuclear weapons. First of all, the Iranians are busily spinning uranium like nobody's business, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has delivered dozens of speeches in which he's stated that it is his country's destiny to have nuclear weapons. As Barney Fife might say, 2 and 2 makes 4.
News today:
Iran's newly revealed uranium enrichment plant is a heavily guarded, still-unfinished underground facility in the arid mountains near the holy city of Qom that will be able to produce nuclear fuel — or the payload for atomic warheads, Western intelligence officials and diplomats said Friday.
The only folks on earth who truly understand the threat posed by Iran's nukes are the Israelis. Indeed, compare Bibi Netanyahu's realist UN General Assembly address to B. Hussein Obama's Utopian kiss-ass-fest before the same body.
Obama's "let's talk 'bout it" window of diplomacy vis-à-vis Iran's mullah's is rapidly closing. Bibi's speech gives us every indication that things in Persia are about to come to a violent head.
Bill Clinton lamented that he was never really "tested" with a true international crisis. Well, Obama's about to get a true international crisis, less than a year after he took office, and it'll be a test like none recent presidents have seen. I only pray he has enough you-know-whats to handle it.
UPDATE (from NationalReview.com):
Iran Lied, Our Government Knew It, and Pretended Otherwise
Wow. Since January, we've sought re-engagement with Iran, soft-pedaled criticism of a brutal crackdown of Iranian civilians, and scuttled missile defense ...
... and now we learn that they've been hiding a second nuclear facility the whole time, and that the U.S. government and its allies have known about this facility for a number of years, and we've pretended, in pursuing this re-engagement, that they could be trusted. And for months, we've made outreach after outreach, all aimed at establishing a relationship of trust with a government that lied to us, and continues to lie to us.
Way to go, Mr. President. Although I guess the Iranians' disinterest in the embassy Fourth of July parties makes more sense now, huh?
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, September 25, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Straight outta Cuba
Not long after Elián González was returned to Cuba -- remember that grand bit o' political theatre?! -- I remember watching a national news spot in which young Elian, who was bedecked in the regalia of the Cuban Communist Party's Young Pioneers, was featured singing Fidel Castro's praises. I couldn't help but think about that episode when I seen this video:
That, mes amis, is an example of political indoctrination, pure and simple. Fidel Castro would be proud, indeed.
If'n you disagree, think about this ...
"Equal work means equal pay" is not some feel-good slogan meant to celebrate America, or America's president. It's a political slogan not unlike what you might find on the Democratic Socialists of America's Web site.
Reckon what would've happened if a gaggle of 5-year-olds in, say, Alabama had been captured on tape singing this in 2003:
Mmm, mmm, mmm
George W. Bush
Because of what Saddam has done
The war in Iraq must be won
Mmm, mmm, mmm
George W. Bush
Our nation will never quite be free
Without private accounts in Social Security
NOTE: Did you catch the lines in the Obama-song that were borrowed from "Jesus Loves the Little Children"?! A group of kids could never get away with singing a Jesus-loving song in a public school; but change "Jesus" to "Obama," and it's ready, set, GO!
That, mes amis, is an example of political indoctrination, pure and simple. Fidel Castro would be proud, indeed.
If'n you disagree, think about this ...
"Equal work means equal pay" is not some feel-good slogan meant to celebrate America, or America's president. It's a political slogan not unlike what you might find on the Democratic Socialists of America's Web site.
Reckon what would've happened if a gaggle of 5-year-olds in, say, Alabama had been captured on tape singing this in 2003:
Mmm, mmm, mmm
George W. Bush
Because of what Saddam has done
The war in Iraq must be won
Mmm, mmm, mmm
George W. Bush
Our nation will never quite be free
Without private accounts in Social Security
NOTE: Did you catch the lines in the Obama-song that were borrowed from "Jesus Loves the Little Children"?! A group of kids could never get away with singing a Jesus-loving song in a public school; but change "Jesus" to "Obama," and it's ready, set, GO!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Are you fuckin' kidding me?!
Back in 1994, I worked for a guy named Steve Wilson who was running for U.S. Senate. Dr. Wilson was an econ prof and author, and he was the only true-blue Supply-Sider in the "six-pack" primary race to unseat Sen. Jim Sasser. That's why I supported him. (More 'bout "Wilson '94" can be found here.)
Dr. Wilson's best media was a radio ad featuring Paul Shanklin, Rush Limbaugh's resident voice satirist, if you will. In the ad, Senator Jim Sasser called President Bill Clinton. To satiate Tennessee's growing conservative electorate, Clinton told Sasser to "smile and tell some really big ones!"
I thought about that long ago political ad when I heard President B. Hussein Obama say this on ABC this past Sunday:
"I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money."
Obama's laughable comment, of course, comes on the heels of 1) the Census Bureau's severing ties with ACORN; 2) videos showing ACORN officials giving advice on how to dodge taxes AND run a whorehouse; and 3) votes in the U.S. House and Senate cutting ACORN off from the federal teat.
Obama's ties to ACORN are well known -- he was once their fuckin' lawyer, for crying out loud! For him to suggest (he was a U.S. Senator who voted for bills dealing with ACORN funding, after all) that he didn't know ACORN didn't get "a whole lot of federal money" ... well, he's telling a tall tale (as my Granny Ruby used to say).
"Smile and tell some really big ones."
You know, when Clinton was lying, he had the whole lip-biting/thumb-thrusting/indignant-staring thing going on in his favor. When Obama lies, he's about as smooth - and persuasive - as the drunk uncle who swears, with lots of "uhs" and "ahs," that his next bottle will be his last.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, September 23, 2009
I wuz right
When I was in grad school, my course of study required me to take a couple of undergrad-level "education" classes. The first class was Education 101 (literally), and the instructor was a local high school principal. For my first assignment in said class, I had to write a paper on, and give a presentation 'bout, a contemporary educational issue.
In my paper, and during my presentation, I argued for more charter schools and more "school choice" in the United States. I provided data in both to show that students in charter school and choice programs were outperforming their public school peers.
I got an "A" on my paper, but my instructer -- a self-proclaimed member of the Tennessee Education Association -- wrote this in BIG red letters across the top of said paper: "Many people disagree with you." Note that she didn't take issue with the data I presented; she just said that many "people" (i.e., unionists and Democrats) disagreed with me.
Fast forward hmpfff years and, well, my thesis is stronger than ever. When it comes to providing a quality education, charter schools rule! To wit:
Students who entered lotteries and won spots in New York City charter schools performed better on state exams than students who entered the same lotteries but did not secure charter school seats, according to a study by a Stanford University economist being released Tuesday.
What's that say about the quality of NYC's public schools, or public schools in general? Perhaps a grad student somewhere will do a study.
In my paper, and during my presentation, I argued for more charter schools and more "school choice" in the United States. I provided data in both to show that students in charter school and choice programs were outperforming their public school peers.
I got an "A" on my paper, but my instructer -- a self-proclaimed member of the Tennessee Education Association -- wrote this in BIG red letters across the top of said paper: "Many people disagree with you." Note that she didn't take issue with the data I presented; she just said that many "people" (i.e., unionists and Democrats) disagreed with me.
Fast forward hmpfff years and, well, my thesis is stronger than ever. When it comes to providing a quality education, charter schools rule! To wit:
Students who entered lotteries and won spots in New York City charter schools performed better on state exams than students who entered the same lotteries but did not secure charter school seats, according to a study by a Stanford University economist being released Tuesday.
What's that say about the quality of NYC's public schools, or public schools in general? Perhaps a grad student somewhere will do a study.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Two dim bulbs on full display
Last night on David Letterman's show, President B. Hussein Obama said the 2008 economic meltdown was a result of, ahem, insufficient governmental regulation.
To borrow a line from President Bill Clinton, I've read a book or two - and hundreds and hundreds of newspapers and magazines - in my life, and I know what Obama said is complete bunk.
What caused last year's economic calamity can be summed up in two words: housing bubble. The housing bubble in question was caused by the Federal Reserve's too-easy monetary policy (if you've read a book or two, you'll know what I mean by "too-easy"), and governmental policies that encouraged banks to take on too much housing-related debt ... which brings us to: government-sponsored/market-distorting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which rolled in Fed-provided easy money, and attempted to put folks into homes for which they couldn't pay. Nutshell. So there. [Please forgive my grammatical derring-do.
As much as folks liked to claim that President George W. Bush was a dumbass, he never made public claims that strained absolute credulity. Our current president, however, does just that on a daily basis -- and sometimes he goes on late-night talk shows (!) to do it!
If I could get paid to do so, I could make a living doing nothing but refuting Obama's daily bullshit statements (especially when he dares open his mouth 'bout political economy). That ain't no shit, neither.
To borrow a line from President Bill Clinton, I've read a book or two - and hundreds and hundreds of newspapers and magazines - in my life, and I know what Obama said is complete bunk.
What caused last year's economic calamity can be summed up in two words: housing bubble. The housing bubble in question was caused by the Federal Reserve's too-easy monetary policy (if you've read a book or two, you'll know what I mean by "too-easy"), and governmental policies that encouraged banks to take on too much housing-related debt ... which brings us to: government-sponsored/market-distorting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which rolled in Fed-provided easy money, and attempted to put folks into homes for which they couldn't pay. Nutshell. So there. [Please forgive my grammatical derring-do.
As much as folks liked to claim that President George W. Bush was a dumbass, he never made public claims that strained absolute credulity. Our current president, however, does just that on a daily basis -- and sometimes he goes on late-night talk shows (!) to do it!
If I could get paid to do so, I could make a living doing nothing but refuting Obama's daily bullshit statements (especially when he dares open his mouth 'bout political economy). That ain't no shit, neither.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Believe me, this is not parody ...
Back in the late 90s, I received monthly fundraising letters from the National Conference of Christians and Jews. Included with many of the letters were small posters depicting a black and white child in an adorable embrace with the slogan, "No one is born a racist."
I couldn't help but think about those letters when I spied the September 14 Newsweek in my doctor's office. Here's the cover:
In the course of the article, a University of Texas resarcher is quoted as saying that white babies (natch) show racist tendencies as young as 6-months-old ... yes, 6-months-old!
I encourage you to read the article. Almost from word one it's apparent that the U. of Texas "study" was designed to prove that white people are inherently racist; thus, it was less a honest study 'bout race than it was an overt political endeavor. And Newsweek's editors not only answered their own question when they approved that cover, they showed their true political colors (no pun intended).
If a study at the University of Wherever determined that Middle Eastern children - or children in Dearborn, Michigan - displayed anti-Semitic tendencies before they celebrated their first birthday, do you think Newsweek would talk 'bout it on the cover? Give that some thought before you answer ...
I couldn't help but think about those letters when I spied the September 14 Newsweek in my doctor's office. Here's the cover:
In the course of the article, a University of Texas resarcher is quoted as saying that white babies (natch) show racist tendencies as young as 6-months-old ... yes, 6-months-old!
I encourage you to read the article. Almost from word one it's apparent that the U. of Texas "study" was designed to prove that white people are inherently racist; thus, it was less a honest study 'bout race than it was an overt political endeavor. And Newsweek's editors not only answered their own question when they approved that cover, they showed their true political colors (no pun intended).
If a study at the University of Wherever determined that Middle Eastern children - or children in Dearborn, Michigan - displayed anti-Semitic tendencies before they celebrated their first birthday, do you think Newsweek would talk 'bout it on the cover? Give that some thought before you answer ...
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, September 21, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Yes, Virginia, you'll have a GOP governor come November
Lemme talk about the Virginia guv'na race for a bit ...
Leftist bloggers are crowing now that Rasmussen has reported that Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell are in a "statistical tie." To borrow a line from Winston Wolf in Pulp Fiction, "Let's not start sucking each other's [you-know-whats] quite yet."
A poll commissioned by the über-liberal DailyKos puts McDonnell up 50-43, and he's leading among independents in the same poll, 51 percent to 38 percent.
At this point in the campaign, I'll wager that Deeds' internal polls closely mirror the Kos poll. How else to explain his recent attacks on ... George W. Bush?!
The Virginia race will be close, but McDonnell will win. Bank it.
Leftist bloggers are crowing now that Rasmussen has reported that Creigh Deeds and Bob McDonnell are in a "statistical tie." To borrow a line from Winston Wolf in Pulp Fiction, "Let's not start sucking each other's [you-know-whats] quite yet."
A poll commissioned by the über-liberal DailyKos puts McDonnell up 50-43, and he's leading among independents in the same poll, 51 percent to 38 percent.
At this point in the campaign, I'll wager that Deeds' internal polls closely mirror the Kos poll. How else to explain his recent attacks on ... George W. Bush?!
The Virginia race will be close, but McDonnell will win. Bank it.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, September 19, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
"The Stimulus Didn't Work"
Economists John Cogan, John B. Taylor, and Volker Wieland have some baaaaaad news for the Obamaniacs who continue to make big claims about the effectiveness of The Stimulus:
Incoming data will reveal more in coming months, but the data available so far tell us that the government transfers and rebates have not stimulated consumption at all, and that the resilience of the private sector following the fall 2008 panic -- not the fiscal stimulus program -- deserves the lion's share of the credit for the impressive growth improvement from the first to the second quarter.
Read the rest here.
While we're talking stimulus, the Republican National Senatorial Committee is holding a pretty clever contest. To wit:
When will the spending stop? This week Senate Democrats voted to continue spending stimulus money ... on road signs that advertise that they're spending stimulus money. This is tens of millions of dollars of your hard earned money that could be used for more pressing needs than Senators patting themselves on the back.
If Senate Democrats are intent on wasting your tax dollars, we figured you should have some input on what these absurd signs say. Please visit our Web site today and enter your stimulus road sign suggestions. We’ll collect them, and next week have people vote for their favorites at nrsc.org.
My admittedly cheesy submission:
Konstruction Kourtesy of Keynesian Kool-Aid Konsumers
Incoming data will reveal more in coming months, but the data available so far tell us that the government transfers and rebates have not stimulated consumption at all, and that the resilience of the private sector following the fall 2008 panic -- not the fiscal stimulus program -- deserves the lion's share of the credit for the impressive growth improvement from the first to the second quarter.
Read the rest here.
While we're talking stimulus, the Republican National Senatorial Committee is holding a pretty clever contest. To wit:
When will the spending stop? This week Senate Democrats voted to continue spending stimulus money ... on road signs that advertise that they're spending stimulus money. This is tens of millions of dollars of your hard earned money that could be used for more pressing needs than Senators patting themselves on the back.
If Senate Democrats are intent on wasting your tax dollars, we figured you should have some input on what these absurd signs say. Please visit our Web site today and enter your stimulus road sign suggestions. We’ll collect them, and next week have people vote for their favorites at nrsc.org.
My admittedly cheesy submission:
Konstruction Kourtesy of Keynesian Kool-Aid Konsumers
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, September 18, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Liar-in-Chief ('nother update)
"Obama Used Faulty Anecdote in Speech to Congress"
Check it out.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, September 17, 2009
Questions for ObamaCare-aniacs
If ObamaCare is designed to "save money," how come it imposes new fees of $6 billion a year on health insurance providers, $4 billion on medical device makers, and $750 million on clinical laboratories?
Last Wednesday, President Obama claimed illegals wouldn't never get ObamaCare (we all know what happened after he said such). Last Friday, however, the Obama Administration endorsed an "enforcement mechanism" to prohibit illegals from participating in the president's health care scheme. Don't that prove Rep. Joe Wilson's point?!
Obama claims that he can fund his health care scheme by rooting out "fraud and waste" from Medicare and Medicaid. If there's enough fraud and waste occurring in Medicare and Medicaid to fund a NEW multi-billion dollar entitlement, why didn't Obama make rootin' fraud and waste out of those two programs the first order of business in his Administration, given this nation's precarious financial state?
For what good reason is Obama shunning Fox News during his upcoming love-me-love-my-socialist-scheme network news sit-downs? Is it 'cause he's afraid he'll not get his ass kissed? Is it 'cause he's afraid he'll be asked questions like, "How you gonna pay for this ****?!"
Last Wednesday, President Obama claimed illegals wouldn't never get ObamaCare (we all know what happened after he said such). Last Friday, however, the Obama Administration endorsed an "enforcement mechanism" to prohibit illegals from participating in the president's health care scheme. Don't that prove Rep. Joe Wilson's point?!
Obama claims that he can fund his health care scheme by rooting out "fraud and waste" from Medicare and Medicaid. If there's enough fraud and waste occurring in Medicare and Medicaid to fund a NEW multi-billion dollar entitlement, why didn't Obama make rootin' fraud and waste out of those two programs the first order of business in his Administration, given this nation's precarious financial state?
For what good reason is Obama shunning Fox News during his upcoming love-me-love-my-socialist-scheme network news sit-downs? Is it 'cause he's afraid he'll not get his ass kissed? Is it 'cause he's afraid he'll be asked questions like, "How you gonna pay for this ****?!"
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, September 17, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Liar-in-Chief (update)
Here ya go, Joe (Wilson), here's another Obama lie 'bout health care (from today's Wall Street Journal):
Speaking of health-care distortions, as President Obama likes to do, consider his assertion to Congress that "buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer." He liked that one so much that he repeated it over the weekend in Minneapolis, this time as a swipe at "the marketplace."
The media’s "fact-check" brigade hasn’t noticed, but this is simply false. The Congressional Budget Office expects premiums for employer-sponsored coverage to cost about $5,000 for singles and $13,000 for families this year on average. "Premiums for policies purchased in the individual market," adds CBO, "are much lower about one-third lower for single coverage and half that level for family policies."
Similarly, the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality finds that the growth rate for premiums is also lower for individuals over employers. Mr. Obama’s health team surely knows this dynamic, given that the CBO report was issued under the auspices of Peter Orszag, now the White House budget director.
Speaking of health-care distortions, as President Obama likes to do, consider his assertion to Congress that "buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer." He liked that one so much that he repeated it over the weekend in Minneapolis, this time as a swipe at "the marketplace."
The media’s "fact-check" brigade hasn’t noticed, but this is simply false. The Congressional Budget Office expects premiums for employer-sponsored coverage to cost about $5,000 for singles and $13,000 for families this year on average. "Premiums for policies purchased in the individual market," adds CBO, "are much lower about one-third lower for single coverage and half that level for family policies."
Similarly, the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality finds that the growth rate for premiums is also lower for individuals over employers. Mr. Obama’s health team surely knows this dynamic, given that the CBO report was issued under the auspices of Peter Orszag, now the White House budget director.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Where have you gone (skinny) Al Gore?
Perhaps the most noble thing Al Gore ever did as Vice President was when he kicked H. Ross Perot with a pro-free trade/pro-NAFTA boot on national television back in 1993. Hell, now that I think about it, that might be the only noble thing Al Gore ever did.
Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of economics knows that protectionism deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. Indeed, the U.S., steeped in a deep recession, erected trade barriers thicker than the Great Wall in 1930, and its global partners followed almost immediately. What followed was a decade of ... well, you know.
Why is it, now that we're in another deep global economic downturn, that the Obama Administration is hell-bent on sparking a trade war pitting America against its closest trading partners?
What am I talking about? Well, the Obama Administration has slapped punitive tariffs on low-cost tires from China. Domestic tire-makers have shunned producing such tires because they're not profitable, but ... President Obama knows that his political fortunes, past and present, are tied to union dollars, so he's done the dolts in the unions a solid by adding $10-20 to the cost of a Chinese-produced tire (not a smart move when folks have fewer pennies to pinch).
What's been the result? Well, China has now slapped tariffs on chickens and auto parts imported from the United States. This comes on the heals of Canadian objections to "buy American" provisions in President Obama's vaunted stimulus program.
If Obama keeps fuckin' our largest trading partners with arbitrary tariffs, who knows what could happen. Wait, we who DO know something about rudimentary economics know exactly what WILL happen, and it ain't pretty. China's gonna stop buying our debt, and most of our domestically-produced products; Canada's gonna slap "buy Canadian" provisions on their domestic stimulus programs; and ...
Stay tuned.
Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of economics knows that protectionism deepened and prolonged the Great Depression. Indeed, the U.S., steeped in a deep recession, erected trade barriers thicker than the Great Wall in 1930, and its global partners followed almost immediately. What followed was a decade of ... well, you know.
Why is it, now that we're in another deep global economic downturn, that the Obama Administration is hell-bent on sparking a trade war pitting America against its closest trading partners?
What am I talking about? Well, the Obama Administration has slapped punitive tariffs on low-cost tires from China. Domestic tire-makers have shunned producing such tires because they're not profitable, but ... President Obama knows that his political fortunes, past and present, are tied to union dollars, so he's done the dolts in the unions a solid by adding $10-20 to the cost of a Chinese-produced tire (not a smart move when folks have fewer pennies to pinch).
What's been the result? Well, China has now slapped tariffs on chickens and auto parts imported from the United States. This comes on the heals of Canadian objections to "buy American" provisions in President Obama's vaunted stimulus program.
If Obama keeps fuckin' our largest trading partners with arbitrary tariffs, who knows what could happen. Wait, we who DO know something about rudimentary economics know exactly what WILL happen, and it ain't pretty. China's gonna stop buying our debt, and most of our domestically-produced products; Canada's gonna slap "buy Canadian" provisions on their domestic stimulus programs; and ...
Stay tuned.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Pic of the day
B'iness on Lebanon Road near Fesslers Lane:
I took some digs at ol' Fred during last year's presidential campaign, but I will say that he -- and the charming Mrs. Fred Thomspon -- has a great many good things to say on his radio show.
I took some digs at ol' Fred during last year's presidential campaign, but I will say that he -- and the charming Mrs. Fred Thomspon -- has a great many good things to say on his radio show.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, September 15, 2009
It's clobberin' time!
Next to MLB's Opening Day, there ain't another yearly event I await with more enthusiasm than the first puck dropped at a Nashville Predators game. Two things worth mentioning 'bout this years' Preds: First, they have a new "third" sweater (hockey non-purists call 'em "jerseys") ...
Second, the Preds and Atlanta Thrashers will meet for a preseason contest this Thursday at the Sommet Center, and there ain't no charge to get in. Tix will be available at the Sommet Center box starting at 10 a.m. on Thursday. Get there early and you just might see yours truly.
Now, back to that third sweater (which was unveiled at Taylor Swift's recent Nashville concert). I like it, but ...
I like the lace-up and the retro coloring and numbering (even if it is very Maple Leafs-like), but Preds brass could've been more original than just slapping the existing Preds logo on the thing. Indeed, I can only imagine how impressive the new sweater would look if it was bedecked with logo similar to that which appeared on the Preds' much-maligned "mustard" third sweater.
Second, the Preds and Atlanta Thrashers will meet for a preseason contest this Thursday at the Sommet Center, and there ain't no charge to get in. Tix will be available at the Sommet Center box starting at 10 a.m. on Thursday. Get there early and you just might see yours truly.
Now, back to that third sweater (which was unveiled at Taylor Swift's recent Nashville concert). I like it, but ...
I like the lace-up and the retro coloring and numbering (even if it is very Maple Leafs-like), but Preds brass could've been more original than just slapping the existing Preds logo on the thing. Indeed, I can only imagine how impressive the new sweater would look if it was bedecked with logo similar to that which appeared on the Preds' much-maligned "mustard" third sweater.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Keynes is still dead
Those who research The Nigh Seen Creeder's archives will quickly learn that I have nothing but complete disdain for John Maynard Keynes, and anyone who attempts to rouse him in a non-dress-wearing kinda way.
Keynesians nearly destroyed the U.S. economy -- what with their loose monetary policy, free federal spending, and indifference to high taxes -- back in the the 70s. You'd think liberals would've learned from the experience ... but then there's President B. Hussein Obama who's advocating loose money, free spending, and high taxes ...
Check this out:
Mr. Obama showed up in early 2009 with the dismissive certitude that none of this history ever happened, and suddenly national economic policy was back in the 1930s. Instead of the change voters thought they were getting, Mr. Obama quintupled down on Mr. Bush's 2008 Keynesianism.
The result is he continuation of the economic policy disaster we have suffered since the end of 2007. Mr. Obama promised that his stimulus would prevent unemployment from climbing over 8%. It jumped to 9.7% last month. Some 14.9 million Americans are unemployed, another 9.1 million are stuck in part-time jobs and can't find full-time work, and another 2.3 million looked for work in the past year and never found it. That's a total of 26.3 million unemployed or underemployed, for a total jobless rate of 16.8%. Personal income is also down $427 billion from its peak in May 2008.
U.S. economic recovery and a permanent reduction in unemployment will only come from private, job-creating investment. Nothing in the Obama economic recovery program, or in the Bush 2008 program, helps with that. ...
Producing long-term economic growth will require a fundamental change in economic policies—lower, not higher, tax rates; reliable, low-cost energy supplies, not higher energy costs through cap and trade; and not unreliable alternative energy surviving only on costly taxpayer subsidies.
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama seems to be wedded to his political talking points, and his ideological blinders seem to be permanently affixed. So don't expect any policy changes. Expect an eventual return to 1970s-style economic results instead.
Keynesians nearly destroyed the U.S. economy -- what with their loose monetary policy, free federal spending, and indifference to high taxes -- back in the the 70s. You'd think liberals would've learned from the experience ... but then there's President B. Hussein Obama who's advocating loose money, free spending, and high taxes ...
Check this out:
Mr. Obama showed up in early 2009 with the dismissive certitude that none of this history ever happened, and suddenly national economic policy was back in the 1930s. Instead of the change voters thought they were getting, Mr. Obama quintupled down on Mr. Bush's 2008 Keynesianism.
The result is he continuation of the economic policy disaster we have suffered since the end of 2007. Mr. Obama promised that his stimulus would prevent unemployment from climbing over 8%. It jumped to 9.7% last month. Some 14.9 million Americans are unemployed, another 9.1 million are stuck in part-time jobs and can't find full-time work, and another 2.3 million looked for work in the past year and never found it. That's a total of 26.3 million unemployed or underemployed, for a total jobless rate of 16.8%. Personal income is also down $427 billion from its peak in May 2008.
U.S. economic recovery and a permanent reduction in unemployment will only come from private, job-creating investment. Nothing in the Obama economic recovery program, or in the Bush 2008 program, helps with that. ...
Producing long-term economic growth will require a fundamental change in economic policies—lower, not higher, tax rates; reliable, low-cost energy supplies, not higher energy costs through cap and trade; and not unreliable alternative energy surviving only on costly taxpayer subsidies.
Unfortunately, Mr. Obama seems to be wedded to his political talking points, and his ideological blinders seem to be permanently affixed. So don't expect any policy changes. Expect an eventual return to 1970s-style economic results instead.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, September 14, 2009
Can you hear me now?!
Back when George W. Bush was Prez-dent, a couple-dozen left-wing/anti-Bush fools (see Sheehan, Cindy) could show up anywhere and it was AN EVENT to be covered by CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.
This past weekend, anywhere from 1-2 million free market patriots showed up in Washington, D.C. to take issue with President B. Hussein Obama's statism, and ........ it went by with a collective yawn from the "mainstream media."
Thank God, Gary Bauer has an "official" report."
Here 'tis:
It was a wonderful weekend in Washington. The weather was excellent, especially if you were here seeing the sites, touring the museums or attending the 9/12 Tea Party. While attendance estimates vary wildly, it is a safe to say the event was extremely well attended. Even the New York Times was forced to concede, "the magnitude of the rally took the authorities by surprise." A lot appears to be surprising "the authorities" these days!
The turnout demonstrates a real awakening by the conservative grassroots, and I’m glad to see it happening. If you participated in the 9/12 march on Washington, I’d like to hear from you. What motivated you to come to Washington? What do you want to see happen next? Please share your thoughts with me by clicking here.
I’d like to report that the politicians were paying attention, but I’m not sure that was the case. Referring to the march, presidential advisor David Axelrod said on Face The Nation Sunday, "I don’t think it’s indicative of the nation’s mood. You know, I don’t think we ought to be distracted by that. My message to them is, they’re wrong."
Meanwhile, the latest Rasmussen poll finds that President Obama’s approval rating has improved considerably since his address to Congress last week. It’s normal for a president to get a "bounce" in the polls after a major speech. How long it lasts remains to be seen, but any improvement in the polls for President Obama will strengthen the resolve of congressional liberals to ram healthcare "reform" through Congress as soon as possible. And we are resolved to stop them.
This past weekend, anywhere from 1-2 million free market patriots showed up in Washington, D.C. to take issue with President B. Hussein Obama's statism, and ........ it went by with a collective yawn from the "mainstream media."
Thank God, Gary Bauer has an "official" report."
Here 'tis:
It was a wonderful weekend in Washington. The weather was excellent, especially if you were here seeing the sites, touring the museums or attending the 9/12 Tea Party. While attendance estimates vary wildly, it is a safe to say the event was extremely well attended. Even the New York Times was forced to concede, "the magnitude of the rally took the authorities by surprise." A lot appears to be surprising "the authorities" these days!
The turnout demonstrates a real awakening by the conservative grassroots, and I’m glad to see it happening. If you participated in the 9/12 march on Washington, I’d like to hear from you. What motivated you to come to Washington? What do you want to see happen next? Please share your thoughts with me by clicking here.
I’d like to report that the politicians were paying attention, but I’m not sure that was the case. Referring to the march, presidential advisor David Axelrod said on Face The Nation Sunday, "I don’t think it’s indicative of the nation’s mood. You know, I don’t think we ought to be distracted by that. My message to them is, they’re wrong."
Meanwhile, the latest Rasmussen poll finds that President Obama’s approval rating has improved considerably since his address to Congress last week. It’s normal for a president to get a "bounce" in the polls after a major speech. How long it lasts remains to be seen, but any improvement in the polls for President Obama will strengthen the resolve of congressional liberals to ram healthcare "reform" through Congress as soon as possible. And we are resolved to stop them.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Monday, September 14, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Let us remember ...
Yesterday, did you notice how many times what happened on September 11, 2001 was called a "tragedy," or a "tragic event" ...?! A tornado is a "tragedy." When a passenger train derails, that's a tragedy as well.
What happened on 9-11-01 was a coordinated attack by Muslim fundamentalists against the very fabric of liberty-loving American society, and its capitalistic underpinning.
So, how did "we" react on this, Year 8 of the War on Terror ...? Well, the President of the United States called it a "day of service," and his Secretary of Heath and Human Services said the perfect way to remember 9/11 is to wash yer hands to avoid the swine flu. No shit.
After reading this, if you don't get mad, you ain't shit (sorry, but it's true) ...
Eight years ago today, our homeland was attacked by fanatical Muslims inspired by Saudi Arabian bigotry. Three thousand American citizens and residents died.
We resolved that we, the People, would never forget. Then we forgot.
We've learned nothing.
Instead of cracking down on Islamist extremism, we've excused it.
Instead of killing terrorists, we free them.
Instead of relentlessly hunting Islamist madmen, we seek to appease them.
...
We've dishonored our dead and whitewashed our enemies. A distinctly unholy alliance between fanatical Islamists abroad and a politically correct "elite" in the US has reduced 9/11 to the status of a non-event, a day for politicians to preen about how little they've done.
We've forgotten the shock and the patriotic fury Americans felt on that bright September morning eight years ago. We've forgotten our identification with fellow citizens leaping from doomed skyscrapers. We've forgotten the courage of airline passengers who would not surrender to terror.
We've forgotten the men and women who burned to death or suffocated in the Pentagon. We've forgotten our promises, our vows, our commitments.
We've forgotten what we owe our dead and what we owe our children. We've even forgotten who attacked us.
We have betrayed the memory of our dead. In doing so, we betrayed ourselves and our country. Our troops continue to fight -- when they're allowed to do so -- but our politicians have surrendered.
Are we willing to let the terrorists win?
-- Ralph Peters, "Betraying Our Dead," New York Post, 11 September 2009
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Saturday, September 12, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Retroactively-speaking
From an e-mail I received today from the Tennessee Democratic Party:
"Tennessee Democratic Party Chairman Chip Forrester wants to know if the state's Republican Congressional House delegation agrees with fellow House member Congressman Joe Wilson who called the president a liar during a speech before Congress on Wednesday night.
"Wilson of South Carolina shouted, 'You lie' when President Obama denied that proposed health-care legislation would provide free health coverage for illegal immigrants."
Wilson told the truth. Obama lied. End of story. Hell, all one's gotta do is Google "illegals" and "ObamaCare" to prove that Tennessee's official Democratic apparatus is a collection of liar-loving dipshits, indeed!
That said ...
Back in 2006, President George W. Bush touted his plan to reform Social Security during his State of the Union Address. He rightly pointed out that Social Security was slowly going broke, without which high taxes and reduced benefits would be the sooner-rather-than-later result. Know what happened when he was speaking? Democrats -- including St. B. Hussein Obama -- audibly booed President Bush.
So, if U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson is to be admonished for TRUTHFULLY pegging President B. Hussein Obama a "liar" on Wednesday, will the Tennessee Democratic Party retroactively admonish those who disrupted President George W. Bush's 2006 State of the Union address ...?!
I ain't gonna FUCKIN' hold my breath watin' for THAT to happen!
NOTE: If ever the term "Girlie Man" applied to a political figure, it surely applies to Tenn. Democrat Chief Chip Forrester. He is a perfect limp-wristed poster boy for the ass-kicking Tennessee Democrats are going to get during the 2011-12 redistricting process ... and then SOME!!!
"Tennessee Democratic Party Chairman Chip Forrester wants to know if the state's Republican Congressional House delegation agrees with fellow House member Congressman Joe Wilson who called the president a liar during a speech before Congress on Wednesday night.
"Wilson of South Carolina shouted, 'You lie' when President Obama denied that proposed health-care legislation would provide free health coverage for illegal immigrants."
Wilson told the truth. Obama lied. End of story. Hell, all one's gotta do is Google "illegals" and "ObamaCare" to prove that Tennessee's official Democratic apparatus is a collection of liar-loving dipshits, indeed!
That said ...
Back in 2006, President George W. Bush touted his plan to reform Social Security during his State of the Union Address. He rightly pointed out that Social Security was slowly going broke, without which high taxes and reduced benefits would be the sooner-rather-than-later result. Know what happened when he was speaking? Democrats -- including St. B. Hussein Obama -- audibly booed President Bush.
So, if U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson is to be admonished for TRUTHFULLY pegging President B. Hussein Obama a "liar" on Wednesday, will the Tennessee Democratic Party retroactively admonish those who disrupted President George W. Bush's 2006 State of the Union address ...?!
I ain't gonna FUCKIN' hold my breath watin' for THAT to happen!
NOTE: If ever the term "Girlie Man" applied to a political figure, it surely applies to Tenn. Democrat Chief Chip Forrester. He is a perfect limp-wristed poster boy for the ass-kicking Tennessee Democrats are going to get during the 2011-12 redistricting process ... and then SOME!!!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Friday, September 11, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Liar-in-Chief
Last night, the President of the United States addressed the whole of Congress to pitch his "health insurance reform" plan ... and he fuckin' lied through his teeth on at least four occasions. To wit:
President B. Hussein said his opposition - chiefly Congressional Republicans - has no "plan" for health care, er, health insurance reform. In reality, the GOP has introduced dozens of bills in the U.S. House and Senate, with House Resolution 3200 being the most comprehensive of the lot, advocating a free-market health care system in the United States. Lie One.
President B. Hussein Obama said illegal aliens would be ineligible for health care benefits under the current Democratic plan. In reality, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service said nothing in the current Democrat bill would prohibit illegals from receiving benefits, and, more importantly, House Democrats -- on two separate occasions -- defeated Republican-sponsored amendments that would've denied illegals from receiving ObamaCare benefits in perpetuity. Lie Two.
In his speech, Obama referred to an Illinois man who "lost" his private health coverage during chemotherapy and "died because of it." In reality, the man in question -- at the behest of the Illinois Attorney General, mind you -- was approved for an experimental stem-cell transplant following his private health care "turn-down," and he lived for three additional years. Lie Three.
Lest you think I'm being too specific, last night's lies and all, just type "lie" and "Obama" in this blog's search engine for more expamples of St. Obama doing what he does best.
President B. Hussein said his opposition - chiefly Congressional Republicans - has no "plan" for health care, er, health insurance reform. In reality, the GOP has introduced dozens of bills in the U.S. House and Senate, with House Resolution 3200 being the most comprehensive of the lot, advocating a free-market health care system in the United States. Lie One.
President B. Hussein Obama said illegal aliens would be ineligible for health care benefits under the current Democratic plan. In reality, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service said nothing in the current Democrat bill would prohibit illegals from receiving benefits, and, more importantly, House Democrats -- on two separate occasions -- defeated Republican-sponsored amendments that would've denied illegals from receiving ObamaCare benefits in perpetuity. Lie Two.
In his speech, Obama referred to an Illinois man who "lost" his private health coverage during chemotherapy and "died because of it." In reality, the man in question -- at the behest of the Illinois Attorney General, mind you -- was approved for an experimental stem-cell transplant following his private health care "turn-down," and he lived for three additional years. Lie Three.
Lest you think I'm being too specific, last night's lies and all, just type "lie" and "Obama" in this blog's search engine for more expamples of St. Obama doing what he does best.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Thursday, September 10, 2009
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Pitty Barry ...!
I can't fuckin' wait for November 2010! Check this out:
Public disapproval of President Barack Obama’s handling of health care has jumped to 52 percent, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released hours before he makes his case for overhaul in a prime-time address to Congress.
With his health revamp moving slowly and unemployment edging ever higher, Obama’s overall approval rating has also suffered a blow. The survey showed that 49 percent now disapprove of how he is handling his job as president, up from 42 percent who disapproved in July.
The grade people give Obama on health care also has worsened since July, when just 43 percent disapproved of his work on the issue.
Public disapproval of President Barack Obama’s handling of health care has jumped to 52 percent, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll released hours before he makes his case for overhaul in a prime-time address to Congress.
With his health revamp moving slowly and unemployment edging ever higher, Obama’s overall approval rating has also suffered a blow. The survey showed that 49 percent now disapprove of how he is handling his job as president, up from 42 percent who disapproved in July.
The grade people give Obama on health care also has worsened since July, when just 43 percent disapproved of his work on the issue.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, September 09, 2009
"What a fuckin' lazy loon ... !"
Whilst sitting in the parking lot of my local Kroger this evening, I watched as a middle-aged lady lazily pushed a shopping cart 'til it rested next to a cart-catcher. To wit:
"I'll bet the lazy *&^@# has an Obama sticker on her car" I said to myself. She didn't, but she did have a Dennis J. Kucinich-inspired Department of Peace sticker on her car ...
What a fuckin' lazy loon ... !
"I'll bet the lazy *&^@# has an Obama sticker on her car" I said to myself. She didn't, but she did have a Dennis J. Kucinich-inspired Department of Peace sticker on her car ...
What a fuckin' lazy loon ... !
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, September 09, 2009
The green, green grass o' hypocrites
Albert Gore, Jr. and Charles, Prince of Wales regularly lecture we ordinary folk that we're going to have to do more with less, all in name of saving the earth from the scourge of "global warming."
If Gore and Prince Charles were as wedded to the global-warming cause as they claim, they'd not only be livin' in tepees on publicly-owned land, they'd also eat nothing but dirt for sustenance, and use nothing but bicycles (or unicycles) for personal conveyance. They won't, of course, and that exposes them as first-degree hypocrites.
That said, the dirty little secret 'bout Al Gore and others like him is the fact that he's living like an electricity-burning king whilst preaching that the world is burning up around him, er, us. Gore instructs ordinary folk to drive impractical two-seat "bubble" cars, use dim-light light bulbs, and foreswear air-conditioning during the dog days o' summer, yet he owns several palatial homes, travels by private jets, and burns Watts like nobody's business. And he's getting rich in the meantime ... here's where the "hypocrite" comes in:
The American Conservative expertly exposed Al Gore's Green-Industrial wallet-filling crusade here ...
Gore is also chairman of a green investment firm called Generation Investment Management, which is a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council, an international collaboration of businesses and science bodies that promotes climate-change mitigation strategies and invests in companies that are environmentally friendly—including firms that produce renewable energy and low-carbon technology. So Gore uses one of his multimillion-dollar organizations—the Alliance for Climate Protection—to put pressure on government to promote the low-carbon lifestyle, which furnishes one of his other multimillion-dollar organizations—General Investment Management—with booming business.
With that, I dare anyone to tell me that Al Gore's "The Earth Has A Fever" crusade is anything but a plan for personal enrichment.
Go ahead, I dare you.
If Gore and Prince Charles were as wedded to the global-warming cause as they claim, they'd not only be livin' in tepees on publicly-owned land, they'd also eat nothing but dirt for sustenance, and use nothing but bicycles (or unicycles) for personal conveyance. They won't, of course, and that exposes them as first-degree hypocrites.
That said, the dirty little secret 'bout Al Gore and others like him is the fact that he's living like an electricity-burning king whilst preaching that the world is burning up around him, er, us. Gore instructs ordinary folk to drive impractical two-seat "bubble" cars, use dim-light light bulbs, and foreswear air-conditioning during the dog days o' summer, yet he owns several palatial homes, travels by private jets, and burns Watts like nobody's business. And he's getting rich in the meantime ... here's where the "hypocrite" comes in:
The American Conservative expertly exposed Al Gore's Green-Industrial wallet-filling crusade here ...
Gore is also chairman of a green investment firm called Generation Investment Management, which is a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council, an international collaboration of businesses and science bodies that promotes climate-change mitigation strategies and invests in companies that are environmentally friendly—including firms that produce renewable energy and low-carbon technology. So Gore uses one of his multimillion-dollar organizations—the Alliance for Climate Protection—to put pressure on government to promote the low-carbon lifestyle, which furnishes one of his other multimillion-dollar organizations—General Investment Management—with booming business.
With that, I dare anyone to tell me that Al Gore's "The Earth Has A Fever" crusade is anything but a plan for personal enrichment.
Go ahead, I dare you.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Maintenant, je suis retourné ...
OK, I lied. I said I was "back" last week ... then I went dove-huntin' in West Tennessee.
Now I'm REALLY back ... and that ain't no shit, neither (apologies to Gunnery Sergeant Hartman).
Stay tuned.
Now I'm REALLY back ... and that ain't no shit, neither (apologies to Gunnery Sergeant Hartman).
Stay tuned.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Just so you know ...
From CWFPAC.com ...
Gallup currently pegs the president’s approval rating at 50%. Rasmussen has it at 46%. Zogby at just 42%. For the first time in it’s polling, a new CNN survey finds that Obama’s approval rating among Independent voters is down to 43%. Republicans have expanded their lead over the Democrats to seven points in the latest Rasmussen poll on control of Congress in the 2010 elections.
I can't wait for November 2010 ...!!!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
I'm Baaaaaaaaack!
I'm riding/ I'm loading up my pistol
I'm riding/ I really got a fistful
I'm riding/ I'm shining up my saddle
I'm riding/ This snake is gonna rattle
-- Aerosmith, "Back in the Saddle"
Just so you know, folks, I've been on vacation for the past several/many days.
I didn't do no computin' during that time, mainly 'cause I didn't have a computer wi' me.
Well, I'm back. And I've lots and lots to say about Saint, er, Comrade, er, President B. Hussein Obama ...
Stay Tuned!
I'm riding/ I really got a fistful
I'm riding/ I'm shining up my saddle
I'm riding/ This snake is gonna rattle
-- Aerosmith, "Back in the Saddle"
Just so you know, folks, I've been on vacation for the past several/many days.
I didn't do no computin' during that time, mainly 'cause I didn't have a computer wi' me.
Well, I'm back. And I've lots and lots to say about Saint, er, Comrade, er, President B. Hussein Obama ...
Stay Tuned!
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Tuesday, September 01, 2009
