New York Snow Cleanup: Unions Once Again Prove They Are Un-American

This is just another shocking addendum to my previous article, “Labor Unions: A Century Of Genuine Evil.”

In New York City, people are dead and unknown tens of thousands suffered because union workers were in a snit over reductions in the workforce.

Sanitation Department’s slow snow cleanup was a budget protest
By SALLY GOLDENBERG, LARRY CELONA and JOSH MARGOLIN
Posted: 2:34 AM, December 30, 2010

These garbage men really stink.

Selfish Sanitation Department bosses from the snow-slammed outer boroughs ordered their drivers to snarl the blizzard cleanup to protest budget cuts — a disastrous move that turned streets into a minefield for emergency-services vehicles, The Post has learned.

Miles of roads stretching from as north as Whitestone, Queens, to the south shore of Staten Island still remained treacherously unplowed last night because of the shameless job action, several sources and a city lawmaker said, which was over a raft of demotions, attrition and budget cuts.

“They sent a message to the rest of the city that these particular labor issues are more important,” said City Councilman Dan Halloran (R-Queens), who was visited yesterday by a group of guilt-ridden sanitation workers who confessed the shameless plot.

Halloran said he met with three plow workers from the Sanitation Department — and two Department of Transportation supervisors who were on loan — at his office after he was flooded with irate calls from constituents.

The snitches “didn’t want to be identified because they were afraid of retaliation,” Halloran said. “They were told [by supervisors] to take off routes [and] not do the plowing of some of the major arteries in a timely manner. They were told to make the mayor pay for the layoffs, the reductions in rank for the supervisors, shrinking the rolls of the rank-and-file.”

New York’s Strongest used a variety of tactics to drag out the plowing process — and pad overtime checks — which included keeping plows slightly higher than the roadways and skipping over streets along their routes, the sources said.

The snow-removal snitches said they were told to keep their plows off most streets and to wait for orders before attacking the accumulating piles of snow.

They said crews normally would have been more aggressive in combating a fierce, fast-moving blizzard like the one that barreled in on Sunday and blew out the next morning.

The workers said the work slowdown was the result of growing hostility between the mayor and the workers responsible for clearing the snow.

In the last two years, the agency’s workforce has been slashed by 400 trash haulers and supervisors — down from 6,300 — because of the city’s budget crisis. And, effective tomorrow, 100 department supervisors are to be demoted and their salaries slashed as an added cost-saving move.

[Snip]

Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said only: “We would hope this is not the case.”

But multiple Sanitation Department sources told The Post yesterday that angry plow drivers have only been clearing streets assigned to them even if that means they have to drive through snowed-in roads with their plows raised.

And they are keeping their plow blades unusually high, making it necessary for them to have to run extra passes, adding time and extra pay.

One mechanic said some drivers are purposely smashing plows and salt spreaders to further stall the cleanup effort.

“That is a disgrace. I had to walk three miles because the buses can’t move,” said salesman Yuri Vesslin, 38, of Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn.

The article fails to mention that at least two people are DEAD because of this disgrace.  They were murdered by union greed.  It also fails to mention that in addition to the workers who showed up deliberately sabotaging the cleanup effort, more than 10% of the union employees simply called in sick.

As I point out, it is anything but the first time labor unions have demonstrated that they were despicable, un-American, or murderers.  It isn’t even the first time that top union leaders TODAY have participated in the murder of American citizens.

Now, when I point out the fact that labor unions are fundamentally un-American, I’m not making anything up.

From my aforementioned article about labor unions being genuinely evil:

Let’s also point out that while labor unions were being violent racists in America, they were in the process of being the source of the greatest evil in human history in Europe.  It was the labor unions that formed the core of Lenin’s violent communist movement.  The Marxists started out in 1898 by forming the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party.  Just as labor unions formed the core of Hitler’s National Socialist German WORKERS Party.

From a 1935 German magazine:

“A Socialist Workers’ Government has achieved a workers revolution in Germany without resorting to, though in some respects it approximates, Communism.  Adolf Hitler has done it by wiping out all class privileges and class distinction, but the economics foundation of property rights and private capital has been left almost intact – for the present time.”

“The Third Reich, under Hitler, has wiped out corporate trade-unionism by forcing all workers to join one great government union, the National Socialist Union of Employers and Workers…”

While American labor unions were basking in the light of FDR’s pork barrel political favoritism and doing everything they could to keep poor blacks down, their European counterparts were at work preparing to set the world on fire.

So far, I can’t say I’d be proud to be a member of a labor union.

AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka recently appeared before an audience of fellow socialist travelers and said:

“…we need to fundamentally restructure our economy and re-establish popular control over the private corporations which have distorted our economy and hijacked our government. That’s a long-term job, but one we should start now.

I Hate the Media points out the scary parallels to the ugly history of the past:

“Re-establish”? Wouldn’t that imply that there had once been popular control over private corporations?

Richard. Mr. Trumka. Sir. Pardon our impertinence, but we believe that what you’re talking about here is National Socialism.

As in Adolf Trumka.

Meanwhile, while AFL-CIO head Trumka was flirting with National Socialism, recently retired SEIU president Andy Stern was kissing up to socialism’s more famous sister, communism, saying:

“Workers of the world unite – it’s not just a slogan anymore.  It’s the way we’re gonna have to do our work.”

Whose slogan was that “workers of the world unite” thing, Andy Stern?

The political slogan Workers of the world, unite!, is one of the most famous rallying cries of communism, found in The Communist Manifesto (1848), by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. A variation (“Workers of all lands, unite”) is also inscribed on Marx’s tombstone.

Ah, yes, the vile, vindictive, vicious and vehemently anti-American Marxists.  And labor unions, which are nothing more than the Communist Party in America today.

Labor unions were spawned by evil and continue to have a history of evil.

But don’t ask me about the particular evil of public unions; ask a former hero of the Democrat Party (which proves that Democrats are far more despicable today than they even were before), Franklin Delano Roosevelt:

February 10, 2010
Even FDR Was Wary of Public Employee Unions
Marc Comtois

This article by Rich Lowry and this piece in the Wall Street Journal both alluded to Franklin Roosevelt’s wariness towards public employee unions. I was surprised. So I dug around and found one source that supports this claim. In a letter to a public employee union, Roosevelt explains that, yes, they do have a right to organize, but there are some restrictions:

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Well, that hasn’t really come to pass now, has it?

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.”

Interesting that he viewed strikes by Federal employees in such a way.

Not just “Federal employees.”  “All government employees.”  Public-sector unions in general.

Labor unions are un-American in every way, as are the Democrat-passed laws that make it impossible for private businesses to resist their impossible demands that are now breaking the back of our economy and our society; and public labor unions are even more so.

FDR’s argument was that public-sector labor unions would entail government workers literally organizing AGAINST AMERICA and AGAINST AMERICANS.

And in that one thing, FDR was entirely right.

Meanwhile, such flagrantly un-American organizations own the Democrat Party, and own President Barack Obama.

SEIU boss Any Stern, “Mister Marxist” himself, was the number one visitor at the White House.  And Mister Marxist bragged that “we spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million, to be exact — and we’re proud of it.”  You know, when he wasn’t saying stuff like, “We use the power of persuasion first. If it doesn’t work, we try the persuasion of power.”

And, of course, letting American citizens suffer and even die while unions refused to do the jobs they were hired to do was most certainly “the persuasion of power.”

And the very same public sector unions that FDR condemned as profoundly anti-American blatantly OWN Barack Obama, who once famously said:

“Your agenda has been my agenda in the United States Senate.  Before debating health care, I talked to Andy Stern and SEIU members.”

“We are going to paint the nation purple with SEIU.”

For the record, SEIU is the very sort of public labor union FDR never wanted to see.  It was a giant step downward into the death-spiral of the American eagle-as-Dodo-bird.

Obama swore that he was a loyal minion of the union agenda.  He also swore he was a loyal minion of the despicable anti-American treason organization aka ACORN.

And just what is that agenda that Obama shares with unions?  How about – in addition to “the persuasion of power” – passing on $3 TRILLION in unfunded pension liabilities onto the American people???

If you’re for public union workers literally allowing you to freeze to death as a means of forcing local governments to continue to impose the union agenda – which includes destroying American families to pad their pensions – then by all means, just keep voting for Obama and the Democrat Party.

But I hope you don’t mind if people who know the truth call you out for what you are: as un-American as Marxist pie (which taste just like a shit sandwich, for what it’s worth).

Redistributing Failure: Obama EPA Goes To War Against Texas

The last Census pretty much proved the point: there is a clear population flow from failed liberal states to successful conservative ones.  And the state of Texas was the biggest winner of all.

Here’s a great title that pretty much sums it up:

Census Winners (Texas) and Losers (Obama)

So what is a good liberal to do?

Ensure that Texas is forced to employ the same utterly failed and immoral policies that are crippling blue states across the country:

EPA, Texas go to war over carbon-emission rules
posted at 2:00 pm on December 27, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

And so it begins, and on the most fertile red-state territory in the nation.  Texas, which got four more seats in the House through the 2010 Census reapportionment, has had its air-quality rules superceded by the EPA as part of its aggressive new action on carbon emissions.  Governor Rick Perry promises a fight:

The federal Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday effectively declared Texas unfit to regulate its own greenhouse gas emissions and took over carbon dioxide permitting of any new or expanding industrial facilities starting Jan. 2.

The EPA also set up a framework for regulating greenhouse gas emissions in seven other states: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon and Wyoming. In addition, the agency set a timetable on establishing regulated levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

The action will give the EPA permitting authority over refineries, power plants and cement facilities in Texas, the agency said, but will not affect small pollution source facilities, such as restaurants and farms.

Well, perhaps not directly, but the increase in energy prices and shortages created by the EPA imposition of what will essentially be carbon taxes will impact businesses throughout the Texas economy, as well as consumers who ultimately pay the costs of the regulatory regime. Rick Perry has signaled a court fight to stop the EPA and the Obama administration:

Texas is the only state that has refused to implement the new rules. President Barack Obama is pressing ahead with the regulations after Congress failed to pass legislation capping carbon emissions. Perry, a Republican, calls the rules overreaching by the federal government that will cripple his state’s economy.

“The EPA’s misguided plan paints a huge target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers by implementing unnecessary, burdensome mandates on our state’s energy sector, threatening hundreds of thousands of Texas jobs and imposing increased living costs on Texas families,” Katherine Cesinger, a Perry spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement.

The timing is certainly interesting. The EPA made this move two days before Christmas, when most people had stopped paying attention to political news. The EPA’s move thus got missed by most of the national media, even though it demonstrates well the Obama strategy in 2011 to win through regulation what it could not win through legislation. And by focusing on Texas, where Republicans have a chance to redistrict with practically no interference from Democrats, the move will certainly incentivize the GOP to limit as much as possible the representation of Democrats in their Congressional delegation as the Republican-controlled House attempts to stymie the EPA’s regulatory innovation.

This also will vault Rick Perry to the highest level of national politics, even as he continues to insist that he won’t run for President. With a third term as governor in hand and a perfect political battle opening in front of him, though, the opportunity may be too much to resist for a man who could possibly unite conservatives and the GOP for a big run against a stumbling Obama in 2012.

There’s a joke I remember: What’s the difference between an American [capitalist] and a European [socialist]?  The American capitalist is riding on a bus and sees a man driving a fancy sports car and thinks, “Some day I’ll be able to afford a car like that.”  Versus the European socialist who is riding on the bus and sees the same thing and thinks, “Some day that sonofabitch will be riding the bus just like me.”

The liberal worldview was best summed up by Reagan:

“If it moves, tax it.  If it keeps moving, regulate it.  And if it stops moving, subsidize it” ~ Ronald Reagan

Punish success.  That way you can get to subsidizing failure.  And then you can move on to subsidizing all the failures that subsidizing failure produces.

Because failures will vote Democrat in order to keep benefiting from other people’s success.

Texas survived the Alamo.  But surviving Obama is like surviving stage IV brain cancer.

Obama DNI Shockingly Clueless About Major Global Terrorism Incident

Liberals might have excoriated George Bush as failing to recognize the terrorist threat to America prior to the 9/11 attack.  For the record, Bush had only been in office for 8 months prior to the attack.  All of the terrorists who hit us were already in the country prior to Bush taking office.  And Bush’s lackluster pursuit of terrorism merely continued Bill Clinton’s basically nonexistent pursuit of terrorism (eg., Clinton refusing to take Osama bin Laden when the Somalis offered his head on a golden platter).

Still, Bush was caught flat-footed.  And in that sense, he deserved criticism.

Now, compare Bush to Barack Obama.  Unlike George Bush, whose predecessor had done nothing to deal with terrorism, George Bush did so much the left howled in outrage over all of his steps.  Unlike George Bush, who had to build Homeland Security out of nothing, Barack Obama had a giant and successful apparatus which he proceeded to successively dismantle.  And unlike George Bush, who was criticized by the left for not being ready after only eight months in office, Barack Obama clearly isn’t ready even after two full years of office.  And, to further give just blame to Obama, Bush’s 8 months of unpreparedness occurred prior to 9/11, when America wasn’t expecting an attack; Obama’s 2 full years of unpreparedness have occurred in the aftermath of 9/11, when only a genuine moron wouldn’t understand the massive threat of terrorism.

Here’s the latest reason to not think, but KNOW, that the Obama administration is criminally clueless when it comes to terrorism (or should I say, to “man-caused disasters”):

Shocking. Top Obama Intelligence Official Clueless on London Bomb Plot
by Tammy Bruce on December 21, 2010

ABC News:”First of all, London,” Sawyer said. “How serious is it? Any implication that it was coming here? … Director [of National Intelligence] Clapper?”

“London?” James Clapper said, before Brennan entered the conversation explaining the arrests.

Later in the interview, Sawyer returned to the subject.

“I was a little surprised you didn’t know about London,” Sawyer told Clapper.

“Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t,” he replied.

Another indication of how disconnected and chaotic the Obama administration really is when it comes to the security of this nation (and all else for that matter). There is no reason in any scenario for our US Director of National Intelligence to not know of major terrorist arrests in London. After all, everyone else knew–reports had been everywhere starting in the morning. Everyone else at the table knew as well, including Diane Sawyer. Why didn’t Clapper?

Watch the video here.

This reveals a degree of chaos that we could not have imagined, and moves us into the bizarre. There is no logical or reasoned way to explain this. Obama has created an environment where even those who were presumably competent have been swallowed by the self-declared Theatre of the Absurd inside the White House.

Everyone claims Obama is the Come-Back Kid because Republicans have once again, inexplicably, grabbed their ankles during this illegitimate lame duck session. The ridiculousness of Obama ‘coming back’ is made apparent when the most important aspect of the Federal government’s responsibility–national security–is arguably non-existent.

Clapper was confirmed unanimously by the Senate just this past August. He succeeded Dennis Blair. But make no mistake, while this is awful for Clapper, this speaks more about Obama than anyone else. To say this is shocking is an understatement.

DNI Clapper Looks Stumped by ABC’s Sawyer

Gen. James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, is the person charged with coordinating what the nation knows about terrorism and national security.

But Mr. Clapper appeared to know less than even the casual television viewer during an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, the anchor of World News Tonight.

Hours earlier, reports flooded cable news shows about arrests of 12 people in London suspected of being part of a potential terrorist plot. In the interview, Ms. Sawyer turned to Mr. Clapper and made an indirect reference to the still-developing incident.

“First of all, London,” she said. “How serious is it? Any implication that it was coming here? Director Clapper?”

The look on Mr. Clapper’s face, and his temporary silence, suggested that he had no idea what she was talking about. He hesitated before saying, “London?”

After a moment or two, he was saved by John Brennan, the White House homeland security adviser, who was also part of the interview, along with Janet Napolitano, the secretary of the department of homeland security. Mr. Brennan explained that Ms. Sawyer was referring to the London arrests.

A few minutes later, Ms. Sawyer returned to Mr. Clapper. “I was a little surprised you didn’t know about London,” she said.

“Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t,” he said, shaking his head.

A spokesperson for Mr. Clapper said in a statement Tuesday night that, “the question about this specific news development was ambiguous. The DNI’s knowledge of the threat streams in Europe is profound and multi-dimensional, and any suggestion otherwise is inaccurate.”

DNI Claper’s knowledge is “profound and multi-dimensional,” just like the idiot who is responsible for putting that moron there, Barry Hussein.

If that’s not enough, let’s examine what Barry Hussein has given us:

In an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder spoke of the ongoing fight to protect American national security and expressed his growing concern with the threat of homegrown terror – a danger which he said  “keeps me up at night.”

“What I am trying to do in this interview is to make people aware of the fact that the threat is real, the threat is different, the threat is constant,” Holder told ABC’s Pierre Thomas, in an interview that aired Tuesday morning.

“The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here, to worrying about people in the United States, American citizens — raised here, born here, and who for whatever reason, have decided that they are going to become radicalized and take up arms against the nation in which they were born,” Holder added.

The attorney general said that of 126 people who have been charged with allegations related to terrorism in the past 24 months, 50 had been American citizens.

“It is one of the things that keeps me up at night,” Holder said. “You didn’t worry about this even two years ago — about individuals, about Americans, to the extent that we now do. And — that is of — of great concern.”

Holder noted that while he was confident in the United States’ counter-terrorism efforts, Americans “have to be prepared for potentially bad news.”

Two things:

Thing one, even Eric Holder is openly acknowledging that the primary terrorist threat facing America is brand new under Barry Hussein.

Do you remember all the demagoguery and demonization Obama aimed at George Bush about making America less safe?  And now we’re finding that our Liar-in-Chief has made America less safe than it has EVER BEEN.

By the clear statement of Obama’s own attorney general, Barry Hussein hasn’t made America more safe, but less safe.

Thanks for putting the nation at risk, Barry H.

Thing two, out of those “126 people who have been charged with allegations related to terrorism,” every single one of them – that’s 100% – were MUSLIMS.

And yet the most reckless and immoral administration to ever contaminate the White House are enacting a policy which views 99 year-old nuns as being as much of a threat as the people who have attacked or tried to attack us over and over again.

The Democrat Party’s “fix” is to impose homosexuality on our military by fiat of politically correctness, so that thousands more Bradley Mannings can implode our national security from within.

Gay Military: Something America Needs Like A Massive WikiLeak

Well, what would have been absolutely freaking unthinkable to our first commander-in-chief, George Washington, has finally happened: we’ve got a gay military now.

I feared this from the outset of the Obama presidency and wrote it up in tones of irony and as much derision as I could muster:

Heck, I’ve got an even better idea.  Liberals have thought excluding gays from the military was so danged unfair and discriminatory.  Why don’t we “swing the other way,” and have a “Gay All The Way!” military?  Maybe – in the name of tolerance – you might allow a few token heterosexuals in as long as they don’t reveal that politically incorrect sexual orientation of theirs.  It’s time to gear up for battle, Rump Rangers; you’re going to need to feed a lot of red meat into the grinder once the world’s dictators realize that the President of God Damn America is an appeasing weakling.  You can use those superior compromising skills of yours to deal with Iran unleashing terrorist hell once your Messiah-President does nothing while Iranian President Ahmadinejab develops nuclear weapons so they can launch terrorism-by-proxy strikes on us with impunity.

The new God Damn America could augment its “Gay All The Way!” status with women who believe that being excluded from being able to do anything a man can do is discriminatory.  They can start walking sustained patrols while carrying a hundred pounds of extra weight in 110 degree heat, and be the ones who try to keep all their body parts intact while running and dodging with fifty pound combat loads.  Good luck with that, girls.  The guys carry that; surely you can do it too.  And don’t worry; you won’t have any heterosexual males around who would let that insulting and patronizing chivalry of theirs get in the way of your NOW-feminist-style equality.  You’ll get the chance to develop that upper body strength of yours digging your own fighting positions out of the rock hard clay.

It is absolutely stunning that we have these disastrous leaks revealing literally hundreds of thousands of pages of US government secrets at the hands of a homosexual soldier, and the very next thing we do is provide for the creation of another hundred thousand Private Bradley Mannings.

I would have thought the theft and release of 250,000 top secret documents would have made the “intelligentsia” pause about the wisdom of recruiting homosexuals who have a documented history of super-massive hissy fits.  But nope.  That would be the sane thing to do; and we can’t have that.  Onward ye proverbial lemmings!  Mush!  Mush!!!

Irony aside, and Bradley Manning aside, I thought this article from Townhall nailed the biggest reasons why this thing is going to be a disaster:

Obama’s New ‘Gay’ Force
Kevin McCullough

With the passage of the law to repeal the Clinton-era legislation commonly referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” President Obama enters into a new reality. In one last blaze of defiance of the American people, and expressly those who serve in our nation’s armed forces, President Obama was able to shove social engineering into pretty much the very corner of American culture where we have no business doing so.

Upon his signature President Obama will begin a process that will at the very least disrupt operations, and at the very worst see the eventual weakening of our armed forces.

Throughout the entirety of this debate I’ve had questions, none of which seemed to be answered or even asked in the congressional sessions dealing with the matter.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint perhaps someone could answer them now, since I’m especially sure that President Obama wouldn’t push for such a fundamental transformation of our military without good answers to them.

1. What happens to housing, on base and in theater?

If it is morally questionable to have men and women housed together because of the sexual tension that exists between primarily men who would be predatorily interested in the women they might shower with or frequently be seen in the act of dressing and undressing on a regular basis, why is it any different if you have identified the predatory homosexual male who might have an unrequited “thing” for a fellow service member? If it is proper to keep men and women housed separately do we now go to four sets of housing. Men who don’t engage in homosexual activity, Men who do, Women who don’t, Women who do? Practically speaking Mr. President how do you get past the fundamental sexual tension that will be present the minute some make it known?

2. Do you expect the military system or the civilian courts to deal with the influx of phony sexual harassment cases to follow?

Consider this issue a prediction of sorts, but take it to the bank that those who engage in open homosexuality will feel the freedom if not the need begin to portray themselves as victims of harassment pretty much anytime something doesn’t go their way. And it may not require anything all that severe to trigger it. A drill instructor gets a little too rough in his language while trying to beat the “sissy” out of a recruit in basic training or Officer Candidate School and the backlog will commence.

3. Will base commanders be required to host “pride” events that allow for similar conduct to the x-rated displays that go on in the nation’s cities each year?

There was much discussion in the Senate and House hearings about the issue of morale, the breakdown of structure, the significance of discipline and the ability to command respect and a readied force. Nothing related to any “pride” event ever held comes close to anything resembling respect, discipline, or structure. There is a reason our best volunteer to serve their nation, and it has nothing to do with speedos, bump or grind.

4. Will all other sexual conduct be made legal as well?

It is still a crime to commit adultery in active military duty, and even more so for officers. How can you possibly be allowing for the flamboyancy of effeminate male soldiers to engage in sexual conduct and their notorious ever wandering lust for the new on one hand, and hold court martial for those who have discreetly hidden their sexual escapades while destroying their families?

There are many legitimate reasons why the military is not the place to run experiments on the restructuring of the society at large.

For the leftist idiots who will scream the meme that, “every other nation on the planet already does it,” shut up!

None of those military forces are the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines.

I know the progressive elites in the nation awake this morning feeling better about what has been done to the U.S. Military in this vote. I know this President has never served and likely barely knows anyone who has. I know that the godless in our nation think this is all a tremendous step forward.

In the hundreds of conversations I’ve had with those that serve in our nation’s armed forces, from Naval F-18 aviators to Army Rangers, Marine specialists to Air Force pilots of B2 stealth bombers, C130s, and military drones, the view of the military is clear. They serve to focus on the mission at hand, not because they may or may not display pictures of their romantic interests in the living quarters.

I know that our military has been the best in the world, and that they deserved to be listened to when they spoke clearly from the four branches to the President. The head of each branch clearly made the case for not allowing the military to become a place where the focus of our troops was placed on when and how they can have sex, instead of achieving their mission.

But now that reality has been thrust upon us. It is a focus of magnificent distraction, and in terms of operational priorities it is of miniscule importance.

It was President Obama’s doing, and the results that follow will be laid at his feet.

Another set of questions by a Marine that no one ever asked about ending “Don’t Ask” can be found here.

In my “day” in the Army, soldiers in the infantry that I served in just would not have tolerated openly homosexual soldiers.  There would have been blanket parties galore, until the gay-berets got the message that they were most definitely not wanted.  I don’t know that that will happen today, but I just can’t imagine the mindset has changed that much in the years I’ve been out (by which I mean out of the military, and not, you know, “out”).

I heard a Democrat representative today say that the military is having a hard time keeping up its recruiting goals, and so therefore it’s stupid to deny thousands of gay men and women the opportunity to serve.  What that omits is the fact that there are a lot of heterosexual men and women who don’t want to be forced to shower and sleep right next to same-sex soldiers who may well want nothing more than to have “sexual relations” with them.  There are also a lot of young men who continue to have something of that Judeo-Christian worldview who rightly believe that homosexuality is a serious moral issue, and these young men aren’t going to want to be forced to trust people that they don’t trust with their lives.

“Missile defense” is about to take on a whole new meaning.

It will be interesting to see if the infantry units – you know, the guys who basically do all of the fighting and most of the dying – are going to see significant drops in enlistment.  The Marine Corps will be an interesting place to look, since “infantry” enlistment figures are hard to find.

One thing I definitely don’t expect to see is huge swells in enlistment, as all of those homosexuals suddenly join up and fill the ranks.  If I’m wrong, you’ll see – based on statistics homosexuals offer – that the US military will suddenly have 143,000 more enlistments, as that 10% of the population that are homosexual suddenly rush to join up.  The thing is that these people didn’t want a gay military so they could join it; they wanted a gay military so they could ruin it.  Just like marriage.

The liberal ideologues whom we just appeased are not the people who will serve.  The people who will serve just got served an in-your-face insult.

The same people who want homosexuals in the military are the same people who think WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is a rock star for publishing every stolen classified American document he can get his filthy paws on.

This was a terrible and an immoral decision, which is all the more terrible and immoral for occurring during time of war.

The left always points to Europe or “other countries” and say that we should do what they do.  A few things are wrong with that: one of them emerges from Thomas Jefferson’s words, “With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell.”  To wit: why on earth would we want to be like Europe?  Another emerges from the question, “WHAT PART OF EUROPE ARE YOU FROM? THE PART WHOSE ASS WE SAVED, OR THE PART WHOSE ASS WE KICKED?” To wit: why on earth would we want to be like Europe.  And yet another emerges from the question why European nations aren’t bothering to stand up and fight for freedom?  Europeans aren’t sending troops to Afghanistan; the troops they do send don’t fight; and most European Union nations are failing to spend even the minimum 2% of their GDP on defense, as required.  To wit: why on earth would we want to be like Europe?

Now we’re way down the path to becoming useless, pathetic and apathetic Europe, only with deodorant.

If homosexual men and women really wanted to serve their country – rather than further break down our nation and its social structures more than they already have – then they would have continued to volunteer and serve their country, rather than imposing their rabid homosexual agenda onto those who just want to defend their country.

Mega-Gigantic Democrat $1.3 Trillion ‘Spend America Into Bankruptcy’ Bill Melts Under Republican Opposition

Dear Republicans,

Soon the reinforcements the American people voted to send you will arrive.

Until then, please keep fighting the monsters with the troops you’ve got.

That’s the gist of my letter to the Republican Party.

And thank God for ’em.

From the Associated Press, dated December 16, 2010:

WASHINGTON – Democrats controlling the Senate abandoned on Thursday a huge catchall spending measure combining nearly $1.3 trillion worth of unfinished budget work, including $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Facing a midnight Saturday deadline when a stopgap funding measure expires, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would work with Republican leader Mitch McConnell to produce a bill to keep the federal government running into early next year.

The 1,924-page bill collapsed of its own weight after an outcry from conservatives who complained it was stuffed with more than $8 billion in homestate pet projects known as earmarks.

Reid, D-Nev., gave up on the bill after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for it pulled back their support. McConnell, R-Ky., threw his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was “unbelievable” that Democrats would try to muscle through in the days before Christmas legislation that usually takes months to debate.

“Just a few weeks after the voters told us they don’t want us rushing major pieces of complicated, costly, far-reaching legislation through Congress, we get this,” McConnell said. “This is no way to legislate.”

The turn of events was a major victory for earmark opponents like Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who for years have been steamrolled by the old-school members of the powerful Appropriations Committee.

The spending barons saw their power ebb in the wake of midterm elections that delivered major gains for Republicans — with considerable help from anti-spending tea party activists.

“We just saw something extraordinary on the floor of the United States Senate,” a grinning McCain said.

Harry Reid, true to his demagogic form, blamed Republicans for stonewalling even given the fact that he never even TRIED to bring up a budget or numerous appropriations bills that led to this last-minute fiasco.

Because when you are an incompetent disgrace from a party of disgraceful incompetents, you can always blame somebody else no matter how badly you failed to attend to the most basic agenda items.

So spend two years wasting the people’s time passing legislation like ObamaCare that the overwhelming majority of Americans did not want and continued to not want, and then at the last minute throw out a 2,00o page pork bill filled with 6,714 earmarks.  Because your spineless president will pontificate about how he’s opposed to signing bills laden with earmarks, and then sign the Democrat bill loaded up with earmarks.  The last time, Obama signed an omnibus bill loaded up with 9,000 earmarks.  In spite of his crystal-clear promise not to sign such a bill.

That’s been the Democrats’ plan.

No one’s been able to read the bill, (but remember what Nancy Pelosi said, you pass these things first so you can see what’s in them, like buying mystery meat in a neighborhood deli where dogs and cats keep turning up missing).

And it would have worked again, too.  Except the American people handed Democrats the largest “Up Yours!” message to a political party in 72 years, and Republicans have actually developed something approaching a spine.

This Congress has tried to pass the DREAM Act which would let illegal immigrants go to college ahead of American kids, and then reward them for going to college with citizenship.  They’re on their way to passing a bill that would end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell which would force homosexuality onto our military during a time of war when maybe social engineering should take a back door (pun intended).  They’re vowing to push a bill that would nationalize all police and firefighter unions and impose the union agenda no matter how much it isn’t wanted.

Because Democrats are loathsome, vile and utterly contemptible.

This is THE most repudiated Congress in the history of Congress.  But that doesn’t stop them from trying to sneak or ram all kinds of immoral garbage onto the country rather than let the Congress that the people just elected take over the people’s business.

Keep fighting the monsters, Republicans.

P.S.

For Harry Reid, I suggest a crucifix and a silver blade.  For Nancy Pelosi, you’ll need a flamethrower.

 

 

Latest ObamaCare ‘Oopsie’: HealthCare Destruction Act Already Killing People

“It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.” – Robert Reich, lifelong Democrat “expert”

“A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people” – Obama Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.” – The Hussein himself, informing a woman that it’s basically time to let her mother die.

“ObamaCare Factoid: Access To Health Care Doesn’t Mean Squat When Hospitals, Doctors And Pharmacists Bail” – Title of article by Michael Eden now factually demonstrated to have been completely right.

Before I provide the article of the day, allow me to show you some things that I posted/wrote nearly a year ago:

This is nothing compared to what might happen under Democratic health overhaul plans, which would slash Medicare spending by nearly $500 billion over 10 years. As Medicare actuaries recently pointed out in understated fashion, such cuts “may be unrealistic.” But, if Congress actually carried them out, about one in five hospitals, nursing homes and home care agencies could lose money, they warned in their report. As a result, such providers could drop Medicare, leaving seniors with less access.

[…]

Don’t think for a second that this isn’t directly related to the disaster known as ObamaCare.  Democrats are gutting Medicare reimbursements and blocking the essential “doctor fix” from their bill to create the contrived and bogus illusion that their boondoggle will provide “deficit neutrality.”  They are playing all kinds of games and gimmicks, such as taxing for ten years and only providing benefits for five, to support that illusion. It will fail, and a lot of people will die.

[…]

And so, what do you think will happen when Democrats cut the reimbursement rates?  People who have commons sense know: hospitals and doctors will begin to see fewer and fewer Medicare patients, as a matter of simple economic necessity.   That isn’t a “reform,” but a disaster.

And this stuff is why the dean of the Harvard Medical School gave ObamaCare a failing grade.  It’s why the California Medical Association recently came out strongly against the bill.  It’s why more and more state governors – Democrats as well as Republicans – are beginning to scream that ObamaCare merely turns Medicaid into a giant deficit-creating unfunded mandate on the states (again, to create the illusion of being “deficit neutral”).

And, now, without further delay, the article of the day’s latest demonstration that the Democrat Party is the political arm of the devil and Barack Obama is leading America into ruin not seen since the last time socialism devastated Europe when our grandparents were young kids…

It is somehow ironically fitting that this destruction of our health care system would be described in Obama’s hometown.

Medicaid cuts: teeth pulled, transplant called off
By The Associated Press
Posted Dec 15, 2010

CHICAGO —

In Illinois, a pharmacist closes his business because of late Medicaid payments. In Arizona, a young father’s liver transplant is canceled because Medicaid suddenly won’t pay for it. In California, dentists pull teeth that could be saved because Medicaid doesn’t pay for root canals.

Across the country, state lawmakers have taken harsh actions to try to rein in the budget-busting costs of the health care program that serves 58 million poor and disabled Americans. Some states have cut payments to doctors, paid bills late and trimmed benefits such as insulin pumps, obesity surgery and hospice care.

Lawmakers are bracing for more work when they reconvene in January. Some states face multibillion-dollar deficits. Federal stimulus money for Medicaid is soon to evaporate. And Medicaid enrollment has never been higher because of job losses.

In the view of some lawmakers, Medicaid has become a monster, and it’s eating the budget. In Illinois, Medicaid sucks up more money than elementary, secondary and higher education combined.

“Medicaid is such a large, complicated part of our budget problem, that to get our hands around it is very difficult. It’s that big. It’s that bad,” said Illinois Sen. Dale Righter, a Republican and co-chairman of a bipartisan panel to reform Medicaid in Illinois, where nearly 30 percent of total spending goes to the program.

Medicaid costs are shared by the federal and state governments. It’s not just the poor and disabled who benefit. Wealthier people do, too, such as when middle-class families with elderly parents in nursing homes are relieved of financial pressure after Medicaid starts picking up the bills.

Contrary to stereotype, it’s the elderly and disabled who cost nearly 70 cents of every Medicaid dollar, not the single mother and her children.

In California, Medicaid no longer pays for many adult dental services. But it still pays for extractions, that is, tooth-pulling. The unintended consequence: Medicaid patients tell dentists to pull teeth that could be saved.

“The roots are fine. The tooth could be saved with a root canal,” said Dr. Nagaraj Murthy, who practices in Compton, Calif. “I had a patient yesterday. I said we could do a root canal. He said, ‘No, it’s hurting. Go ahead and pull it. I don’t have the money.”’

Murthy recently pulled an elderly woman’s last tooth, but Medicaid no longer pays for dentures.

“Elderly patients suffer the most,” Murthy said. “They’re walking around with no teeth.”

States can decide which optional services Medicaid covers, and dental care is among cutbacks in some places. Last year’s economic stimulus package increased the federal share of Medicaid money temporarily. But that money runs out at the end of June, when the federal government will go back to paying half the costs rather than 60 to 70 percent. So more cuts could be ahead.

During the Great Recession, millions of people relied on the Medicaid safety net. Between 2007 and 2009, the number of uninsured Americans grew by more than 5 million as workers lost jobs with employer-based insurance. Another 7 million signed up for Medicaid.

Just when caseloads hit their highest point, the nation’s new health care law required states not to change the rules on who’s eligible for Medicaid. That means states can’t roll up the welcome mat by tightening Medicaid’s income requirements.

So states have resorted to a variety of painful options.

In Arizona, lawmakers stopped paying for some kinds of transplants, including livers for people with hepatitis C. When the cuts took effect Oct. 1, Medicaid patient Francisco Felix, who needs a liver, suddenly had to raise $500,000 to get a transplant.

The 32-year-old’s case took a dramatic turn in November when a friend’s wife died, and her liver became available. Felix was prepped for surgery in hopes financial donations would come in. When the money didn’t materialize, the liver went to someone else, and Felix went home. His doctor told him he has a year before he’ll be too sick for a transplant.

“They are taking away his opportunity to live,” said his wife, Flor Felix. “It’s impossible for us or any family to get that much money.” The family is collecting donations through a website and plans a yard sale this weekend, she said.

The choices are difficult for states that have already cut payments to doctors and hospitals to the bone.

“If we don’t see an economic recovery where state revenues rebound, they’re really going to be very strained on how they can make ends meet,” said Diane Rowland, executive director of the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured.

States may consider lowering payment rates to nursing homes or home health agencies or further reducing payments to doctors, Rowland said.

“The problem here is the program is pretty lean, and payment rates are pretty low,” she said. Patients can’t find care because fewer doctors accept the low payments.

Prescription drug coverage in states is an optional benefit, another possible place to cut, Rowland said. “But if you cut back on people’s psychotropic drugs, is that penny-wise and pound-foolish? Do they end up in institutions where Medicaid pays more for their care?”

In Illinois, late payments became the rule.

Tom Miller closed his pharmacy in rural southern Illinois this summer and is going through bankruptcy, largely because the state was chronically late making Medicaid payments to him. Most of his former customers are in the program.

With the state sometimes months behind in payments, he couldn’t pay his suppliers. Five workers lost their jobs when his business closed.

“You can only fight it for so long,” said Miller, 54. He now works as a pharmacist in a hospital. He misses his old clients, the families he grew to know.

“I was in my third generation. I’ve had moms who had kids. I saw the kids raised, and they had their own children,” he said. As a neighborhood pharmacist, “you’re their friend. You’re family.”

The death panels are right around the corner.  To the extent that they’re not already here right now, as with the case of Francisco Felix, who is being denied life by being denied a liver by Medicaid.

Francisco Felix never stood in front of a death panel; but bureaucrats don’t need you wasting their time with bothersome questions when they decide to let you die a slow and agonizing death due to medical neglect (or maybe you’re fortunate enough to get that pain pill from Obama?).

We told you so.  We told you so.  We told you so.  WE TOLD YOU SO.

As one speaking from the lofty vantage point of one having a one-thousand percent batting average, let me forewarn you Democrats yet again: Someday, when you’re burning in hell for all eternity for your direct participation in the murder of 52 million innocent human beings in America alone through abortion, realize that God is going to turn up the fires a few billion extra degrees for the coming horror that is going to come to this country as a result of your ObamaCare disaster.

Associated Press Aids Rabid Left In New Sarah Palin Scandal Hoax

There was that moment frozen in history when Joseph McCarthy went that “one giant leap” too far, and was asked, “Have you no sense of decency?”  And that question resonated with the nation, because this was a time when both political parties and the media actually had a sense of decency remaining.

Those days are long gone from the Democrat Party and the mainstream media.  Their souls swim in “having no sense of decency.”

Now all we have coming from them are demagogic lies and Goebbels-levels of propaganda:

Media Creates New Palin Scandal! Sarah Accused of Bringing Hairdresser on Haiti Trip
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Posted on 12/12/2010 5:57:01 PM PST by kristinn

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin traveled to Haiti this weekend as a guest of the Rev. Franklin Graham and Samaritan’s Purse to spotlight the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the earthquake and cholera-stricken Caribbean (half an) island nation. Instead she has found herself embroiled in a scandal, accused of bringing a hair stylist on the trip to make herself look good for the cameras and “photo-ops.”.

The Associated Press transmitted a photo from Haiti of Palin captioned, “Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, center, has her hair done during a visit to a cholera treatment center set up by the NGO Samaritan’s Purse in Cabaret, Haiti, Saturday Dec. 11, 2010. Palin arrived Saturday in Haiti as part of a brief humanitarian mission. Dieu Nalio Chery / AP”

That photo and caption set off rabid attacks on Palin from the Huffington Post, the U.K.’s Daily Mail and, of course, Palingates.

The photo does indeed show Sarah Palin standing with her husband Todd as a woman whose face is obscured uses two hands to fix the hair on the right side of Palin’s head.

However, one can observe that the woman is white, with her brown hair pulled back in a ponytail, wearing a white shirt with a bulky scarf and dark pants.

In other photos from Saturday, Todd and Sarah Palin’s white, brunette, eldest daughter Bristol, who accompanied her parents on the trip to Haiti, is wearing the exact same clothing and ponytail as the “hair stylist” in the AP photo.

That’s right, what the Palin-hating AP and others fail to report is that the “hair stylist” is Bristol Palin.

The AP photographer who sent the caption would have known that it was Bristol Palin, but by not mentioning her the AP was able to do a media hit on Palin but still be able to claim they told the “truth” with the caption.

The Palins and the Grahams in Haiti (“hair stylist” Bristol second from right):

Palin “has her hair done”:

Photos via Palingates

The Daily Mail titled their story based on the AP photo and caption, Ready for Her Close Up…Sarah Palin Lands in Haiti (where they don’t care what her hair looks like)

The Huffington Post titled their attack on Palin, Reading the Pictures: Palin Does Haiti Cholera: How’s My Hair (and did AP lend a curl?). The AP reference in the headline is based on speculation in the article about whether the AP ran “scathing photo op-defying pictures of “the Sarah show?””

The raving lunatics at Palingates titled their hit piece, BREAKING NEWS: Palin Looks Good in Haiti.

To reiterate, a daughter helps fix a loose strand of her mother’s hair, and it becomes an international scandal. Amazing.

I don’t think that Sarah Palin should run for president in 2012.  I think she’s great, with a rare degree of common sense and the courage to square off with both parties to get things done.  But I literally don’t think the country deserves her at this point.

The left, the Democrats, the mainstream media, have come so completely unglued, and told so many demonic lies about Sarah Palin, that I don’t think she could overcome the vomit that has counted as “coverage” of Sarah Palin.

And they won’t stop.  They are so full of hate that it just oozes out of them.  And it has to keep spewing out.

When large and once-respected media outlets like the Associated Press deliberately insight demagogic hatred of an undeserving major political figure, we are degenerating into a truly dangerous place.

Let me just ask the Associated Press: have you no sense of decency?

Bill Clinton Says Rich Can Afford To Have Their Taxes Raised – But He Won’t Even Pay Hillary’s Campaign Debts

I don’t have the transcript for it, and the closest I could quickly find was this bit from Reuters:

“In my opinion, this is a good bill, and I hope that my fellow Democrats will support it,” Clinton said.

He admitted that as a high earner himself he would benefit from the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that Democrats, including Obama, dislike. But with an extension of unemployment benefits and a cut in payroll taxes, Clinton said the package was the best bipartisan deal to help the country.

But I directly heard Slick Willy say that he could afford paying higher taxes.  And that even though he would personally suffer, it was the right thing to do for the country.  Because that’s just what a noble guy he is.

And Obama very definitely said it, as the Washington Times article entitled, “Obama: Rich can afford tax hike” should make abundantly clear.

But what Bill Clinton CAN’T seem to afford is wife Hillary’s campaign debts from now more than two full years ago.

The Clinton’s will eventually pay them, I don’t doubt.  With Other People’s Money, of course:

Bill Clinton is giving someone a chance to spend a day with him in New York City to help pay off his wife’s 2008 campaign debt.

The former president has sent out a new fundraising pitch on behalf of his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who still owes her presidential campaign pollster.

Hillary Clinton owed Mark Penn and his firm more than $479,000 as of September, according to a campaign report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Bill Clinton can pitch for raising income taxes on Other People.  Because he knows damn well he’ll weasel out of them with the help of accountants who are nearly as slick as he is.

He’s not interested in “paying his fair share.”  If he was, he’d write the check for his family campaign debts, instead of trying to sucker you into writing the check to pay off his wife’s debts for him.

Do you think Slick Willy’s going to be digging out his checkbook to pay off YOUR debts anytime soon?

Clinton and other wealthy liberals can say this kind of crap because they are unrelenting hypocrites.  Their souls swim in hypocrisy the way fish swim in water.  And so they know that they can raise taxes to whatever level they can manage, and that they’ll be able to afford every tax dodge and tax shelter and tax loophole that money can buy.

But most people can’t.  They’re forced to basically pay out the maximum rate, because they don’t have the money to afford the tax attorneys who can shelter their assets.  So they get screwed while the Slick Willy’s of the world keep getting other people to pay their debts for them.

And, of course, the Clintons and the Obamas have other little perks that honest people don’t have.  When Bill Clinton was elected as the attorney general for the state of Arkansas, his wife Hillary immediately got hired by the Rose Law Firm.  And when Bill was elected governor, suprise, suprise, Hillary suddenly made partner.  And there was that $1,000 Hillary turned into a hundred grand inside of a year with the painfully obvious benefit of insider trading tips.

And Michelle Obama benefited every scintilla as much from her husband’s political machinery.  Within months of Barack being elected state senator, Michelle Obama received a $195,000 pay increase from the “not for profit” hospital where she worked.  And at that same time, she was suddenly put on boards of companies for lucrative money – yes, including another huge stock payout.

Maybe you get money literally thrown at you on account of your spouse’s political connections.  I don’t.  Maybe the fact that I have to work hard for my money, rather than riding the coattails of a big money political machine and the businesses craving the opportunity to purchase influence makes me less willing to pay more taxes to the government.  Because I can’t tell my political patronizers, “The price just went up.”

And this liberal progressive hypocrisy on taxes and influence peddling with Other People’s Money  is as old as, well, liberal progressivism.

Barack Obama n0minated Tom Daschle to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services – and incredibly powerful position in the advent of the age of ObamaCare.  The only problem was that Daschle the Democrat hadn’t paid his taxes.

This happened again and again with a slew of Democrats who thought that their screed of “paying your fair share” only applied to Other People.  And how DARE you think that Democrats should be held accountable for standards that should only apply to Other People.

Ultimately, Obama’s nomination for Treasury Secretary went through, even though the man who would be in charge of tax enforcement hadn’t bothered to pay his own income taxes.  Because, by that time, it was apparent that finding an honest Democrat was just impossible.

And, of course, we now all know about the history of the Democrat in charge of writing tax laws for everyone else, Rep. Charlie Rangel, the now-disgraced former Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

But, of course, if you think he should be criminally prosecuted for his abject failure to follow his own tax laws, well, you’re just a racist, aren’t you?

If the Congressional Black Caucus really believed that “the rich should pay their fair share of taxes,” they’d have hung Charlie Rangel up by his balls like he deserved, rather than labeling anyone who pointed out that he was a tax-cheating hypocrite fraud as a racist.

And in a way, the racist Congressional Black Caucus is completely right.  Because all Charlie Rangel did was act like a Democrat.  And if every Democrat was arrested for hypocrisy, I mean, there just wouldn’t be any Democrats walking the streets, would there?

Remember, Charlie Rangel is a good Democrat.  A GREAT one, in fact.  Because he was totally true to the Democrat philosophy: he wanted Other People to pay higher taxes, while he himself slept on the beach in front of his villa – which he hadn’t bothered to pay taxes on in SEVENTEEN YEARS.

Amazingly, Charlie Rangel – who was re-elected yet again in spite of the fact that he is a big fat criminal and a fraud, because that’s just the way Democrats roll – was one of the vocal Democrats spouting their opposition to “the rich” getting away with paying lower than communist-level income taxes.  Because, again, Democrats make up for their ignorance with sheer unmitigated chutzpah.

Rangel should do a lot less talking and a lot more shutting the hell up.

The same thing happened the LAST election, in 2004.  John Kerry was lecturing us in that snotty tone of voice of his on paying our fair share of taxes, and how the rich owed more.

Well, George Bush – the guy who believed in LOWER taxes – basically paid income taxes on the maximum federal income tax rate of 35% without taking deductions he qualified for.  What did the Kerrys pay? How double damn DARE you ask!!!

Kerry’s Wife Pays Less Taxes Than Median Family

“According to HUD, the median family income for the U.S. for 2003 was $56,500.  After applying the standard deduction of $9,500 for married filing jointly we end up with a taxable income of $47,000.  This puts the average family in the 15 percent tax bracket.  Kerry’s wife, using tax shelters, managed to pay only an effective federal tax rate of 11.5 percent, compared with the top federal income tax rate of 35 percent.  She paid $587,000 on an income of $5.1M.

“If Kerry wants the rich to pay more he should start with his wife.”

Despite the release of partial financial information, John and Teresa Kerry have not explained why, if it’s so important for the evil rich to pay more taxes, they didn’t add a voluntary addition to their check to the IRS.

So the arrogant and always snooty Kerrys – who demanded that Other People pay far more on their income taxes paid less than one-third (rhymes with ‘turd’) the tax rate they would have paid if they were honest people who WEREN’T full of hypocrisy over their eyeballs.

Because John Kerry and his rabid wife are Democrats.  And to be a Democrat is tantamount to being a vile pile of slime these days.

Has John Kerry learned the error of his ways and reformed from his hypocrisy?  I hate to tell you, but his yacht screams hell no:

Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.

All this to say that Democrats say “the rich should pay more” only because they are vile dishonest hypocrites who know that they won’t have to follow the rules that they afflict honest people with.

The facts are abundantly clear: allowing citizens – ALL citizens, not just the ones who pass Democrats’ Marxist class warfare test – to keep more of their own money which they earned and they deserve to keep is good for the economy, good for job-creation and even good for the government tax revenues.

Not that you can trust Democrats who are too damn dishonest to bother to pay their own taxes while railing at everyone else to pay more to admit that.

Every Democrat who says that “the rich should pay more” should be checking the box on their tax forms and donating whatever percent they want Other People to pay to the government.  That’s right, you hypocrite Democrats: why don’t you put your money where your mouths are for just once in your life and do what you are demanding that Other People do?

That goes for the more than half of you Democrats who don’t pay ANY federal income taxes at all.  You can file a tax form.  You can check that box.  You can give 39.6% of your money – or whatever you demand that Other People pay – to the government.  You’re just too damn full of hypocrite to do so.

So you just eat dirt, you Bill-and-Hillary Clinton John-and-Teresa Kerry Tom Daschle Timothy Geithner Charlie Rangel Democrats.  You can be as self-righteous – or as Barack Obama himself called you, “sanctimonious” – as you want.  But you know and I know that you’re really nothing but a bunch of lousy greedy hypocrites who want Other People to pay YOUR “fair share.”

Federal Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

A federal judge fired a massive shot across the bow of behemoth government run amok over the lives of the people today in ruling key aspects of ObamaCare violate the Constitution.

Federal judge deems part of ObamaCare unconstitutional
By Matthew Boyle – The Daily Caller
12/13/2010

A federal judge in Virginia has determined that the part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson deemed that part of the law unconstitutional in the first part of what is sure to be a case that will end up in the Supreme Court. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli led the fight in his state.

“I am gratified we prevailed. This won’t be the final round, as this will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court, but today is a critical milestone in the protection of the Constitution,” Cuccinelli said in a statement.

Hudson said the part of the law that requires individuals to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional because it “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”

The judge focused on a the analogy that Obama and Kathleen Sabelius have repeatedly used (along with the government legal team) that health care was akin to auto insurance, along with the bait-and-switch tactics of Obama repeatedly promising the American people that ObamaCare would not raise their taxes, only to use the argument that ObamaCare actually was a tax when it was conenient.

Let me say this: by the Democrats’ own use of “auto insurance” as their analogy, we have death panels galore.

How many people have been forced to surrender their drivers’ licence or to auto insurance?

Don’t pay your registration fees or your insurance premiums?  Lose your license.  Can’t pass a test?  Lose your license.  Drive under the influence?  Lose your license.

So for all the screaming about how terrible Sarah Palin was for coining the phrase “death panels,” again, by the Democrats very own analogy, we’re going to have death panels galore.  If you don’t dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’, the federal government can take away your healthcare and allow you to die.

So the next time you hear a liberal tell you that health care is like a divers license or auto insurance, go ahead and say, “Alright you Nazis; so it is.”

Conservatives, for their part, have agreed with U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson in saying that ObamaCare is nothing like auto insurance or drivers licenses at all.  For the simple reasons that both auto insurance and drivers licenses are regulated by the STATES, not by the federal government.  And that the federal government is clearly usurping power – again, even with the Democrats’ own analogy – that at best the STATES SHOULD have.  And that, further, an individual is NOT in fact forced to purchase auto insurance or obtain a drivers license; as they can freely choose not to drive.

Or maybe I went to sleep and woke up to jackbooted government police kicking down doors and forcing every American to purchase an auto insurance policy.

And, again, conservatives have been loudly decrying the incredibly deceitful and cynical tactic of promising the American people that ObamaCare is not a tax, and that their taxes won’t go up “one dime,” only to say after it is passed (on the back of a demonstrable lie) that it really was a tax all along, after all.

Do we really want to foment a political system in which flagrent dishonesty with the American people is the best policy?  And the more outrageous the government’s lies, the better the chance they have in advancing their agenda?

Thank God this monstrosity finally hit a roadblock.  I guess in that extremely limited sense, ObamaCare is like driving a car, after all.

Obama Maims Tax Cut Extension: When Will Democrats Realize They Have A Failed President On Their Hands?

So Barack Obama decides to cave in to Republicans, thinking if he keeps using his demagogic rhetoric his base won’t realize he’s abandoning them for his own political future.

Obama gave a televised session (you know, to go along with the million billion other televised sessions the media whore has done by now), and likened Republicans to terrorist-hostage-takers for voting according to their basic principles.

Only Democrats should be able to vote according to their principles; anyone else doing it is evil.

Republican leaders have largely ignored the fact that, if they are “hostage takers” for “holding tax cuts for the middle class hostage” to tax cuts for the rich, then Democrats are every single iota as much “hostage takers” for “holding tax cuts for the middle class hostage” to Marxist class warfare ideology.  Republicans seem to think that that fact is so obvious only a moron wouldn’t understand it.

What they don’t realize is that approximately half the country are morons.

But Obama’s “Rhetoric for Dummies” didn’t work for him; because while Obama was demonizing the Republicans who were willing to strike a deal (that they also weren’t particularly thrilled with), Democrats were screaming themselves into the mother of all hissy fits.

So Obama – ever the demagogue – went back to demagogy in yet a second media session.  This time against his very own party as he labeled them as “sanctimonious.”  Which I don’t doubt drove the sanctimonious Democrats absolutely crazy (well, beyond crazy, anyway; they were already crazy).

So Obama demonized the people in the rival party who were willing to accept his deal; and then he demonized the people in his own party who weren’t willing to accept his deal.

You’d think that kind of approach would work every time, wouldn’t you?

Unfortunately, for those who don’t live in plastic bubbles, it didn’t:

House, Senate on Collision Course After Dems Reject Tax Cut Bill
Published December 09, 2010

The House and Senate appear to be on a collision course over President Obama’s controversial tax plan, after House Democrats voted to block the package from coming to the floor in its current form.

Though the vote was not binding, the House Democratic caucus on Thursday approved a measure by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., effectively rejecting the GOP-negotiated deal unless and until a majority of Democrats support it. One Democratic leadership aide said the vote “shows how much the White House screwed this up.”

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, told Fox News he expects the Senate to take up the bill anyway without any substantive changes Thursday afternoon. He predicted the measure would pass, a belief echoed by a number of Senate Democratic aides interviewed by Fox News. But that would send the bill straight to the House, where some members are mounting a rebellion.

“If it’s take it or leave it, we’ll leave it,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, after the caucus vote Thursday, adding that he thinks House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will take her cue from the caucus.

Pelosi, releasing a statement shortly after the vote, said only that the party would “continue discussions” with Republicans and the president to “improve the proposal” before a floor vote.

“Democratic priorities remain clear: to provide a tax cut for working families, to create jobs and economic growth, to assist millions of our fellow Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, and to do this in a fiscally sound way,” she said. The White House said that Congress was working through the “normal process” of debating legislation.

The Democrats’ resolution specifically stated that the tax package in its current form “should not come to the House floor for consideration.”

Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., said “it’s a pretty clear message. We don’t like the bill.”

The vote came after 54 Democrats, led by Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont, signed a letter in opposition to the tax cut deal. The 54 Democrats, by themselves, would not be enough to block the package in the House, depending on how much support it gets from Republicans. But the caucus vote could shake things up.

Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the House’s No. 3 Democrat, said when asked what comes next, “I don’t know. We’ll wait and see.”

The White House continues to face an uphill climb in convincing his party to get on board with the package. The administration appeared to be breaking through after Vice President Biden visited the Hill on Wednesday, and some Democrats left acknowledging that the package could have enough support to pass.

As of Thursday, Democrats were all over the map. Most Republicans seemed to be standing by the negotiated package, but a few prominent conservatives were peeling off and criticizing it as too expensive.

Speaking Thursday at a White House event promoting American exports, President Obama said the vote will determine whether the economy “moves forward or backward.”

The president again pressed Congress to pass the agreement, saying it has the potential to create millions of jobs. He said if it fails, Americans would see smaller paychecks and would result in fewer jobs.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

So, let’s sum up: Republicans, who are willing to support the bill by giving some of what they don’t want to get some of what they want, are “hostage takers.”  And Obama is vilifying the party who in his own words are trying to create millions of jobs and prevent Americans from seeing smaller paychecks and fewer jobs.  Because that’s just the kind of turd he is.  Meanwhile, Democrats, who refuse to support the bill unless they get everything they want, are NOT hostage takers.

And that’s the operating narrative, because, yes, half the country is actually that stupid.

But let’s take a moment to consider something else: just how shockingly terribly the guy who has refused to show us his birth certificate has butchered this negotiation.

And the beauty of it is that you don’t have to listen to conservatives like me to hear that anymore; just pay a little attention to what DEMOCRATS are now saying about Obama.

How about this little gem of class?  From ABC:

An unidentified Democratic lawmaker let slip his frustration at President Obama’s proposed tax compromise, apparently muttering “f**k the president,” during a heated debate this morning.

I don’t know, maybe they’re pissed off because Obama basically didn’t even bother to consult them before undermining their agenda.  Because Obama is an abject failure as a leader and as a president.  He’s already “led” the Democrat Party to it’s worst “shellacking” since 1938, and now he hasn’t even gotten out of the lame duck session before he’s warming up to lead them to an even BIGGER shellacking in 2012.

What’s great about this is that it is shaping up to be a win-win for Republicans.  By being the first to agree to Obama’s offer, they have the upper hand if Democrats refuse it.  I mean, idiotic morons I mean Democrats aside, WHO’S responsible for making every American pay more in taxes if this deal falls through???  And then add to that the fact that if the deal doesn’t go through now, Republicans will be in an even STRONGER position when they take over the House of Representatives in January.

It’s shaping up to be funny, it its own twisted way: as terrible as Obama is for America, he’s even worse for the Democrat Party.