Thursday, April 22, 2010


Pic of the day

In remembrance of causes lost ...

Wednesday, April 21, 2010


More bad news for Barry and the Dems

From Gary Bauer:

Barack Obama may have thought he had a mandate to "fundamentally transform America," but he was wrong. More than 100 polls clearly demonstrated the public’s opposition to ObamaCare. But supremely confident in Big Government, the liberal Democrats were blinded by their own arrogance and ignored them all.

It’s hard to trust someone or something that blatantly ignores you and does the exact opposite of what you want, which is precisely what the Democrats did in passing ObamaCare. So, it’s not surprising to me that a new Pew Research Center poll finds that nearly 80% of Americans do not trust Big Government. Pew summarized the poll’s results by stating, "Rather than an activist government to deal with the nation’s top problems, the public now wants government reformed and growing numbers want its power curtailed." This must come as a shock to Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

Just how bad is the political environment for Democrats these days? Independent political handicappers are predicting big trouble for the Democrats. New data suggest 60 to 70 Democrat-held seats may be in the "toss up" column, while fewer than a dozen GOP seats are at risk. That’s not to suggest that the GOP will win every competitive race and pick up 60 seats. But the Democrats are clearly playing defense in large measure because the American people do not share their love of Big Government.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010


Bad news for Barry and the Dems

A few weeks have passed since ObamaCare passed ... and a new Rasmussen poll finds likely voters now favor Republican control of Congress by ten points, 46 percent to 36 percent. According to Rasmussen, it's "biggest [GOP] lead in nearly three years of weekly tracking."

Republicans continue to lead (46 percent to 43 percent) Gallup’s survey of registered voters, and a new Gallup survey on Obama’s job approval finds that as the president finishes his fifth quarter in office, his 48.8 percent rating "ranks among the lowest for elected presidents' fifth quarters since World War II."

Here's more bad news for Democrats from the Associated Press:

"President Barack Obama delivered Democrat-friendly California a stark message Monday: Liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer might lose her re-election race if her supporters don't work hard. The president’s stern words in a state where he remains popular and Boxer won her last re-election race in a rout underscored the perilous political environment confronting all Democrats in this midterm election year."


Cartoon of the day

Monday, April 19, 2010


Give me a constitutional break

Back in 1995, I went to a fundraiser for a member of the Metro-Nashville Council. Said council member was a Democrat, but he was a friend of the family. And so I went.

Just as the fundraiser was busting up, State Senator Bob Rochelle came waltzing in wearing his stupid suspenders. Rochelle apologized for being late, explaining that he'd been "hiking" with Boy Scouts all day. Now, anyone who ever saw Bob Rochelle while he was serving in the General Assembly knew that the only hiking he ever did was from his car to the front door of Mario's or Jimmy Kelly's.

Having worked at the legislature for a short time, I knew Bob Rochelle. So I walked over and started chatting with him. When the conversation turned to politics, I asked him about some damn-fool domestic policy Bill Clinton was advocating at the time. We'd argued about it for a bit when I stated that I had a constitutional objection to whatever Clinton was doing. I don't remember what we were arguing about, but I do remember what Rochelle said in poo-pooing my constitutional concerns. It was so stunningly stupid, I almost certainly will never forget it.

According to Bob Rochelle, the Commerce Clause gives Congress license to do whatever it wants. "The Commerce Clause gives the U.S. Congress supremacy." That's what he said. I responded thusly: "So, Congress, basically, can do whatever it wants?" "Yes," quoth Rochelle.

Now, Rochelle had/has a reputation of being a big blowhard -- literally and figuratively. But that is one of the blowhardiest things I've ever heard a politician say.

When it comes to ObamaCare, several state attorneys general have raised questions about the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" contained therein. ObamaCare requires, under penalty of law, that every citizen purchase health care insurance. To justify the individual mandate, liberal members of Congress and left-wing talking heads have taken to citing the Commerce Clause. But the Commerce Clause regulates commerce between states, not private transactions between private citizens and private companies. One need not be a lawyer, or constitutional scholar, to recognize that ObamaCare's mandate is blatantly unconstitutional. Period.

Ken Cuccinelli, Attorney General of Virginia, has a very cogent letter in today's Wall Street Journal explaining why he has chosen to file suit against ObamaCare, and he makes some damn good points. To wit:

In your April 2 editorial "ObamaCare and the Constitution," you seem to assume that Virginia's lawsuit against ObamaCare is an attempt to "nullify" federal law.

This is not the case. Virginia concedes that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause ensures that federal law trumps state law when there is a direct conflict between laws. However, a federal law will only trump when it is constitutionally grounded. In our lawsuit, Virginia is asking the federal courts to declare the federal health-care act unconstitutional based on Congress's use of the Constitution's Commerce Clause to impose an individual health insurance mandate on citizens.

Certainly the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states, but for more than 220 years it has been applied to affirmative acts of commerce voluntarily entered into by individuals. If someone is not buying insurance, then—by definition—he is not participating in commerce. How, then, can the government use the Commerce Clause to regulate noncommerce? Virginia contends that it cannot.

If Congress has the power to force Americans to buy health insurance and thereby subsidize those people without it, then there is no limit to its power to force people to engage in other forms of commerce for the benefit of others. For example, Congress could force Americans to buy General Motors cars to save jobs in the face of lagging auto sales.

This lawsuit is an argument over how much the federal government can twist the wording of the Constitution so as to transfer even more power from the people to itself. It is about drawing a line on the bounds of the federal authority. Ultimately, it is about liberty itself.

Providing health care for all citizens is a laudable and worthy goal, but conceding our very freedom and the freedom of future generations to achieve that goal is a dangerous and inequitable exchange.

Saturday, April 17, 2010


Pic of the day

Yes, but, what if you love to eat animals?! Like this roasted duck:

Damn, I love duck. Even better'n I love takin' (rhetorical) shots at lettuce-eaters. Indeed.

Friday, April 16, 2010


Quote of the day

Democrats can avoid the electoral bloodbath we predicted before passage of the health-care bill, but in one way: through a bold commitment to fiscal discipline and targeted fiscal stimulus of the private sector and entrepreneurship.

-- Douglas E. Schoen and Pat Caddell, "How the Democrats can avoid a November bloodbath"

Note: If you're holding your breath waiting for Democrats to embrace "fiscal discipline" and promote "entrepreneurship," well, you're gonna smother to death ...


Tee hee!

According to Gallup, 50 percent of likely voters say President Barry Obama does not deserve a second term, "including 54 percent of independents, and 12 percent of Democrats."

Thursday, April 15, 2010


So there

Liberal talking heads and left-wing bloggers would have you believe that Tea Partiers are semi-literate, slack-jawed yokels. Nothing could be further from the truth:

Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public ... according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.


Fascinating poll

Apparently so ...

Americans are now pretty evenly divided about whether they would rather have Barack Obama or George W. Bush in the White House. 48% prefer Obama while 46% say they would rather have the old President back. Bush had atrocious approval ratings for his final few years in office, particularly because he lost a lot of support from Republicans and conservative leaning independents . . . These numbers suggest some peril for Democrats in making Bush a focus of their messaging this fall. A lot of folks who contributed to the former President's low level of popularity now like Obama even less.


Happy tax-payin' day!

Just so you know, the U.S. government will spend $31,406 of your tax dollars this year ...

Taxpayers filing their 1040s are likely wondering just where all their hard-earned tax dollars are going, anyway.

• Washington will spend $31,406 per household in 2010 — the highest level in American history (adjusted for inflation). It will collect $18,276 per household in taxes. The remaining $13,130 represents this year's staggering budget deficit per household, which, along with all prior government debt, will be dumped in the laps of our children.

• Government spending has increased by $5,000 per household since 2008, and nearly $10,000 per household over the past decade.

Yet there is no free lunch: If spending is not reined in, then eventually taxes must also rise by $10,000 per household.

So, who among us thinks that he or she is gettin his or her 31 grand's worth from the federal gov'ment?! If you do, you probably don't pay any taxes any way. So to hell witcha.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010


Fail in 90 seconds

Here's Obama's record of economic failure, presented in a format that will take you only 90 seconds to read (courtesy of Doug Ross) ...

FAIL: The "HAMP" mortgage modification program, designed to save homeowners from foreclosure? Out of 651,000 "trial" modifications, zero (that's none) have turned into a permanent repayment plan.

FAIL: The "Cash-for-Clunkers" program cost taxpayers between $20,000 and $45,000 per vehicle purchased.

FAIL: The "Stimulus" program, which cost $787 billion and was rammed through Congress using the premise that, without it, unemployment would not pass 8%, has resulted in 10.2% unemployment and 17% "under-employment" (U-6). The tab will be paid for by your children and grandchildren.

FAIL: The $60 billion bailout of GM and Chrysler -- abrogating bankruptcy law with payoffs to various union bosses -- is an utter and complete failure. The businesses are unsustainable without a massive restructuring, including dramatically retooling union contracts.

FAIL: The bailout of AIG, orchestrated by the then-head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) Timothy F. Geithner, "wasted billions" of taxpayer money according to the inspector generator of the TARP program. The initial $85 billion rescue failed, forcing the Fed to pay above-market for the swaps it acquired. The result? "There is no question that the effect of the FRBNY's decision - indeed, the very design of the federal assistance to AIG - was that tens of billions of dollars of government money was funneled inexorably and directly to AIG's counterparties," according to the inspector general. In fact, the terms of the plan were so flawed that the Treasury Department had to dole out an additional $40 billion to AIG just weeks later. For his part in the debacle, FRBNY chairman Geithner was rewarded with a Secretary of the Treasury role by President Obama.


The Obama Limbo

The Campaign for Working Families blog tells us about "The Obama Limbo" ...

Most of us are familiar with the limbo, a Caribbean dance in which participants try to walk under a horizontal pole by bending backwards while the pole gets lowered with each successful attempt. It seems President Obama has brought the limbo to American diplomacy, only he’s bending forward in a bow to foreign leaders.

How low can he go? Obama’s infamous bow to the Saudi king is well known. Maybe Obama was just trying to make sure that we would still get Saudi Arabia’s oil, since he’s put a lot of ours off limits. The White House denied that Obama bowed to King Abdullah, but then Obama did it again when he met the emperor of Japan.

Yesterday, it was Hu Jintao’s turn. Who’s Hu? He’s the president of communist China. I know some folks today feel like they have to bow to their banker. Maybe Obama bowed to Hu because the debt we owe China is up 20% on his watch. But at least he didn’t hug Hu. Obama’s saved the hug for Brazil’s Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, a fellow socialist who blamed the global credit crisis on "white people with blue eyes."

Before someone accuses me of nitpicking, symbolism can have serious effects around the world. Osama bin Laden once said, "When the people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they naturally gravitate toward the strong horse." Other than our liberal media elites, who is bowing to Obama?

An American president does not bow to foreign royalty, and certainly not to thugs. This president disrespects our allies, while showing deference to dictators. Some have suggested that the president is a narcissist. I’ll leave the psychoanalysis to the experts. But there’s no doubt that when it comes to America, which the president believes is in need of "fundamental transformation," the posture Obama is most comfortable with is submission.

The Left routinely criticized George W. Bush for his cowboy swagger. But I’ll take a president who appreciates American strength any day over a president who apologizes for America’s "arrogance." Obama’s bowing is a physical manifestation of his groveling speeches. With a bowing and apologetic president, how long will the world see America as a "strong horse"?

Tuesday, April 13, 2010


A shameful display

When U.S. Rep. Bob Clement (D-Nashville) was running for re-election in 1992, he ran a television ad in which he echoed prez-candidate Bill Clinton's call to raise taxes on "the rich -- they weren't paying their "fair share," you see -- and he also ran an ad in which he suggested that the government was the primary engine of job growth in the U.S. (The jobs ad really offended me, and I sent the good Congressman a copy of The Wealth of Nations, along with a lengthy note calling him on his economic ignorance. I'm still waiting for a thank-you note for the book.)

In 2002, Clement jumped into the race for the U.S. Senate seat that was being vacated by the retiring Fred Thompson. In his TV ads for that race, he talked about how he'd help small business with tax breaks and the like so's they could create jobs, and he lambasted his opponent, Lamar Alexander, for a long-ago suggestion that an income tax in Tennessee might be inevitable. I quickly penned a letter to the Tennessean newspaper calling Clement on his rank hypocrisy.

Clement's hypocrisy pales in comparison to that of Colorado Senator Michael Bennet. Bennet voted for Barack Obama's $787 billion "stimulus" boondoggle and the $2.5 trillion health care bill. Now he's running ads saying it's wrong for members of Congress to "spend money they don't have." To wit:

Bennet has a pair the size of basketballs, n'est-ce pas?!

UPDATE: If you're having trouble seeing the video, click here.


The GOP is poised to "bring it on"

The latest bad news for Democrats ...

Gallup Daily tracking for the week ending April 11 puts Republicans slightly ahead of Democrats, 48% to 44%, in the congressional voting preferences of registered voters nationally. This marks the third week since the U.S. House passed healthcare reform on March 21 that the Republicans have tied or led the Democrats.

Monday, April 12, 2010


Have a steak and a smile

Eat steak, eat steak eat a big ol' steer
Eat steak, eat steak do we have one dear?
Eat beef, eat beef it's a mighty good food
It's a grade A meal when I'm in the mood.

-- Reverend Horton Heat, "Eat Steak"

There are a lot of fools, er, folks, including a few Creeder Readers, who've sworn off red meat 'cause of the supposed negative impact cows have on the environment. This story right here should allay any guilt you might feel the next time you're in the mood for a big ol' steak ...

From the London Telegraph: "In the past environmentalists, from Lord Stern to Sir Paul McCartney, have urged people to stop eating meat because the methane produced by cattle causes global warming. However a new study found that cattle grazed on the grasslands of China actually reduce another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide."

What? How does that work?

From the London Telegraph: "Klaus Butterbach-Bahl, of the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany, carried out the study in Inner Mongolia in China. He found that grassland produced more nitrous oxide during the spring thaw when sheep or cattle have not been grazing. This is because the greenhouse gas, also known as laughing gas, is released by microbes in the soil. When the grass is long snow settles keeping the microbes warm and providing water, however when the grass is cut short by animals the ground freezes and the microbes die."

OK. The Law of Scientific Studies is that every research paper has a reaction in another research paper equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

Still, it is nice to know that it may be the vegans who are killing the planet.


When the ObamaCare hits the fan

Back in '08, Barack Hussein Obama liked to say -- you know, back when he was still posing as a moderate -- that none of his policies would result in folks who make less than a quarter-mil having to pony up new taxes.

According to a story in today's The Hill newspaper, we're all gonna get whopped big time when the bill for ObamaCare come due. To wit:

Taxpayers earning less than $200,000 a year will pay roughly $3.9 billion more in taxes — in 2019 alone — because of healthcare reform, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper for legislation.

The new law raises $15.2 billion over 10 years by limiting the medical expense deduction, a provision widely used by taxpayers who either have a serious illness or are older.

Taxpayers can currently deduct medical expenses in excess of 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. Starting in 2013, most taxpayers will only be allowed to deducted expenses greater than 10 percent of AGI. Older taxpayers are hit by this threshold increase in 2017.

Once the law is fully implemented in 2019, the JCT estimates the deduction limitation will affect 14.8 million taxpayers — 14.7 million of them will earn less than $200,000 a year. These taxpayers are single and joint filers, as well as heads of households.

"Loss of this deduction will mean higher taxes for 14.7 million individuals and families making under $200,000 a year in 2019," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told
The Hill. "The new subsidy for health insurance would not be available to offset this tax increase for most of these households."


Bad news for Barry

Remember when the talking heads in the mainstream media told us that once ObamaCare passed, the American people would take a liking to it ... and fall in love with Barry Obama all over again? Well ...


Three weeks after Congress passed its new national health care plan, support for repeal of the measure has risen four points to 58%. That includes 50% of U.S. voters who strongly favor repeal. ...

Chicago Tribune:

President Barack Obama's job approval rating has slid to 45 percent today in the Gallup Poll's daily tracking, a rolling average of the past three days' surveys.

That's a new low in the Gallup tracks -- which found the president's approval rating at a previous low of 46 percent in early March.

Any chance these two stories are related?

Sunday, April 11, 2010


Chip, Chip, Chip ...

Chip Forrester, chairman of the Tennessee Democratic Party, is an idiot without peer. Check out this blog's archive if'n you don't believe me.

A few weeks back, ol' bow tie-wearin' Chip got kinda lucid (I was surprised, too) and ...

Tennessee Democrats face a "nuclear winter for 10 to 15 years" if they allow Republicans to control the Legislature and handle the redrawing of district lines as the result of the 2010 elections, Democratic state party chairman Chip Forrester said.

Here's hoping Chip Forrester has a pair o' political undies lined with asbestos, 'cause redistricting is gonna be very, very ugly for Tennessee Democrats come 2011 -- Big Bang-ingly ugly. (That John Chiles-Beth Halteman thing from 20 years ago ... that's the kind of shit state Democrats can look forward to in a year-point-five, and then some.)

Wait, wearing asbestos underwear will put Forrester in dutch with the trial lawyer lobby. I guess he'll just have to double-up on laced panties he no doubt wears. And then some ...


It's beginning to look a lot like ...

... 1994:

A new Gallup poll finds that the favorability rating of the party of Obama, [Mr. Personality Sen. Harry] Reid and [I-need-four-lbs-o'-makeup-to-make-myself-presentable House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi has hit an 18-year low.

The dramatic decline is due almost entirely to a 17-point drop in support among Independent voters. Numbers like those help explain a Rasmussen poll this week that found Senate Democrat Harry Reid losing to all three GOP candidates, two of whom are leading by double digits.

(HT: Campaign for Working Families PAC)


Long quote of the day

The world is now several decades into the era of environmental panic. The subject of the panic changes every few years, but the basic ingredients tend to remain fairly constant. A trend, a hypothesis, an invention or a discovery disturbs the sense of global equilibrium. Often the agent of distress is undetectable to the senses, like a malign spirit. A villain—invariably corporate and right-wing—is identified.

Then money begins to flow toward grant-seeking institutions and bureaucracies, which have an interest in raising the level of alarm. Environmentalists counsel their version of virtue, typically some quasi-totalitarian demands on the pattern of human behavior. Politicians assemble expert panels and propose sweeping and expensive legislation. Eventually, the problem vanishes. Few people stop to consider that perhaps it wasn't such a crisis in the first place.

This is what's called eschatology—a belief, or psychology, that we are approaching the End Time. Religions have always found a way to take account of those beliefs, but today's secular panics are unmoored by spiritual consolations or valid moral injunctions. Instead, we have the modern-day equivalent of the old Catholic indulgence in the form of carbon credits. It's how Al Gore justifies his utility bills.

-- Bret Stephens

Monday, April 05, 2010


Note to Creeder Readers

Joltin' Django is workin' at night (and during the day) now. I'm still gettin' used to my new sched-yule, but I'll be back starting Sunday, April 11.

Thanks for reading ...

Sunday, April 04, 2010


I was born at night, but not last night

Remember when U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) said this:

"My fear is that the whole island [o' Guam] will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize."

As is the usual wont of politicians who say something incredibly stupid, ol' Hank now says he was "taken out of context." From his office:

"I wasn’t suggesting that the island of Guam would literally tip over I was using a metaphor to say that with the addition of 8,000 Marines and their dependents – an additional 80,000 people during peak construction on the tiny island with a population of 180,000 – could be a tipping point which could adversely affect the island’s fragile ecosystem and could overburden its stressed infrastructure. Having traveled to Guam last year, I saw firsthand how this beautiful – but vulnerable island – could easily become overburdened, and I was simply voicing my concerns that the addition of that many people could tip the delicate balance and do permanent harm to Guam."

Hank Johnson wasn't metaphorically-speaking when he talked o' Guam tipping over, and he knows it.

That said, anyone who even considers voting for Idiot Johnson should have his or her voter registration card summarily revoked.

I know that sounds arbitrarily harsh. However, if certain folks in Shelby County, TN, had had their voter registration cards summarily revoked once upon a time, State Senator John Ford ... you know where I'm going with this.

Saturday, April 03, 2010


My new favourite charity

I used "English" spelling, so you know I'm serious ...

Donate here.

Friday, April 02, 2010


Obama's poll numbers: they keep going, and going ...

... down.

Wanna know why ol' Barry's in the shape he is? What he told CBS News' Harry Smith will enlighten you:

"I can go to my right, but I prefer my left."

November's gonna be fun, indeed!

Thursday, April 01, 2010


Democrats' rainbows and unicorns


The troof

Remember all that crap we heard 'bout Obama's supposed "bounce" in the polls following the passage of ObamaCare? Well, here's the troof (HT: Gary Bauer):

A new Marist poll finds that 53% of registered voters disapprove of Obama’s handling of healthcare, while 41% approve. Among Independent voters, 56% disapprove.

A recent Rasmussen poll found that 70% of voters said they are “angry with the policies of the federal government,” and 64% of voters feel that Congress is doing a poor job. That doesn’t bode well for the majority party.

A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds that 50% of Americans do not believe that Obama deserves reelection, while 46% believes he does.

The Gallup poll also found a shift in voters’ preference for control of Congress in the days following passage of ObamaCare. According to Gallup, registered voters favored Democrat control of Congress by a 47%-to-45% margin before ObamaCare passed. Now, voters favor Republican control of Congress by a 47%-to-44% margin.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?