skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I have been watching the debt ceiling debate with absolute disgust. Seriously, I am on the verge of vomiting from the outright lies, distortions, political games and typical Washington foolishness. Never in my life have I witness such dysfunction!
First we have Obama who has now taken to flat out lying to the American people. Today on CBS News Obama was asked a straight forward question about whether or not Social Security checks would go out next month and here is what the Liar In Chief said:
CBS News: President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.
"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.
This is a bold face lie, plain and simple. The Social Security Administration claims to have $2.5 trillion surplus. Monthly expenditures for Social Security is about $60 billion. How then on God's green Earth can Obama say with a straight face that he cannot guarantee seniors will receive their on August 3rd?
Obama should be shown the door immediately for lying to the American people like this and CBS News should have their licence revoked for not calling Obama out on such a lie. It is absolutely disgusting!
Aside from a lapdog media, Obama is comfortable lying to the public because he knows he is dealing with a bunch of loser Republicans. The Republican leadership is a bunch of losers because they immediately went down the road of agreeing to raise the debt ceiling from the get go.
Back in January when they took control of the House, Republicans were quick to agree with the left's lie that calamity would befall the world if the debt ceiling was not raise. Now we have Republican leadership willing to abdicate it constitutional authority of the purse strings to the president in order to avoid political heat.
Enter loser Mitch McConnell: Desperate to get out of the political box they helped to create, Senate Republicans are actively pursuing a new plan under which the debt ceiling would grow in three increments over the remainder of this Congress unless lawmakers approve a veto-proof resolution of disapproval.
In effect lawmakers would be surrendering the very power of approval that the GOP has used to force the debt crisis now. But by taking the disapproval route, Republicans can shift the onus more onto the White House and Democrats since a two-thirds majority would be needed to stop any increase that President Barack Obama requests.
“It gives the president 100 percent of the responsibility for increasing the debt limit if he chooses not to have any spending reductions,” Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, the Republican Conference chairman, told reporters Tuesday. [MORE]
Mitch McConnell must be the stupidest man on earth. If he thinks abdicating his constitutional responsibility to Obama will stop Obama. I have two words for McConnell ... "bully pulpit". Obama will, with the aid of a complicit media, use the bully pulpit to spin raising the debt ceiling endlessly by claiming all spending as much needed "investments" (e.g. we need to "invest" in high speed rail, we need to "invest" in new infrastructural, we need to "invest" in fill in the blank). The media will be all to happy to find statistics and economists who will back up the need for these "investments".
The reason why the debt ceiling debate has turned into a parade of liars and losers is because neither Republican nor Democrat has the guts to force Washington to live within its means. If Washington was forced to live "pay check to pay check" like so many Americans have to, it would quickly find that it would be forced to make real and drastic cuts to spending.
For the first time in history, Washington would have to do away with duplicate departments, failed programs, crazy projects, corporate welfare, subsides, non-essential military spending and of course congressional and executive perks. Furthermore, the American people would actually get to see exactly what the welfare state is costing them. Will Americans be willing to pay for lavish things like free presicription drugs for all seniors regardless of their income? Or will Americans be willing to give the children of illegal aliens a free college education instead or paying for infrastructure improvements? Faced with such stark choices, would Americans continue to be so passive about government spending? I doubt it.
What I would not give to have one adult step into this fray and inject much needed commonsense into the debate. Perhaps, Sarah Palin might come to the rescue with a scathing Facebook post.
Associated Press: ATLANTA — Newt Gingrich's top two fundraising advisers resigned on Tuesday, and officials said the Republican candidate's hobbling presidential campaign carried more than $1 million in debt.
The departures of fundraising director Jody Thomas and fundraising consultant Mary Heitman were the latest blow for the former House speaker who watched 16 top advisers abandon his campaign en masse earlier this month, partly because of what people familiar with the campaign spending described as a dire financial situation.
These people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the campaign inner workings, said the former Georgia lawmaker racked up massive travel bills but money had only trickled in since he got into the race earlier this spring.
These officials said that he is at least $1 million in debt. The current fundraising quarter ends June 30, and Gingrich will have to disclose his campaign finances by July 15. He is personally wealthy and could fund his campaign out of his own pocket, at least in the short term, to keep his campaign afloat. [MORE]
This is just so sad. Newt's campaign reminds me of a mortally wounded animal that does not have the good sense to lay still and quietly accept its inevitable fate. If this level of chaos and drama is what Newt Gingrich brings to the table, then he really needs to pack it in now. This sad sack performance will never be able to withstand the onslaught Obama and his media minions have in store for the GOP nominee.
Thankfully, if the survival of Team Newt means Newt has to dip into his own pocket, then there maybe hope this wounded beast will find the good sense to lay still and accept his fate. Stick a fork in this guy, he is done.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: Associated Press
The Atlantic: A few months ago, an attorney for Sarah and Bristol Palin put in an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to trademark their names. (One of many things that suggests that profit, and not the presidency, is what's motivating Palin.) For Sarah Palin, the intent was a little less clear cut than it was for her daughter, as this article in Politics Daily made clear:
For Sarah Palin's application, there are two classes of commercial service for which her name would be a registered trademark. One is for "information about political elections" and "providing a website featuring information about political issues." The second is for "educational and entertainment services ... providing motivational speaking services in the field of politics, culture, business and values.
The "Bristol Palin" application is for "educational and entertainment services, namely, providing motivational speaking services in the field of life choices."
According to the same reporter, the deadline to challenge Palin's application passed on Friday and -- amazingly -- nobody seems to have challenged it. So it looks like the Patent and Trademark Office will award both patents trademarks in the near future. Better hold off on those bootleg Palin T-shirts you were thinking about printing up. For anyone who's curious, here's Palin's trademark application.
I beg to differ. While most see a profit motive, I see a very crafty way to kill a lot of that anti Palin crap floating about the net. If Palin is trademarked, all those anti Palin websites, tee shirts and other nasty things will be infringing on her trademark. Either they pay up or they shut down. If you are running for president, what better way to protect yourself and your image from the hoards of lefties who will try to smear you?
The media and the left won't see it that way because they are locked into the idea that Palin is not running and that she is all about the money. However, if Palin is running she just bought herself one powerful weapon against those who want to smear her. Just take a look at what trademark infringement entails.
Behold the power of Palin.Hot Air: When you’ve got a puppy with a habit of crapping on the carpet, you may need to rub his face in it to set him right.
Serious candidates require serious message discipline, and as of last Monday’s debate, she’s most definitely a serious candidate:
“We need Mrs. Bachmann out front and we need the campaign to be a real campaign with one spokesperson and a disciplined message,” said one Bachmann adviser granted anonymity to speak candidly about strategy…
Bachmann’s newly installed political team has had its own battles with message discipline — typified by campaign manager Ed Rollins’ recent comments alleging that former Alaska governor Sarah Palin hasn’t been “serious” over the last few years.
After the incident, Bachmann was “very firm” with Rollins, according to an adviser to the congresswoman, telling him this should not happen again and that there should be “no more press”. Bachmann also demanded that Rollins call the Palin people and apologize. “She is definitely not tone deaf,” the source added.
Bachmann’s move to limit her exposure in the wake of her debate performance is a smart strategy designed to avoid accidentally trampling on the momentum she built with that performance.
You knew this had to come sooner or later. If Michele Bachmann wants any chance of being "the" conservative candidate, she is going to have to be in good graces with Palinistas. As pundit after pundit tries to write off Palin 2012, it is clear Palin will play a major role in this election whether she runs of not.
I still think Palin is running in 2012 (have you seen this SarahPAC letter?). I still think the real question everyone should be asking is if Palin will run to win the nomination or run to shape the nomination. Either way, consider Ed Rollins officially spanked.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: Hot Air
I have been hearing a steady liberal whine lately about how Republicans are bringing back Jim Crow by making changes to voting laws. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was the first Democrat to make this whine. Since she is the DNC chair, I think it is safe to assume that her initial whine can be considered marching orders for the rest of the party.
Today EJ Dionne, dutiful leftist media hack, picks up that whine in his Washington Post column.An attack on the right to vote is underway across the country through laws designed to make it more difficult to cast a ballot. If this were happening in an emerging democracy, we’d condemn it as election-rigging. But it’s happening here, so there’s barely a whimper.
The laws are being passed in the name of preventing “voter fraud.” But study after studyhas shown that fraud by voters is not a major problem — and is less of a problem than how hard many states make it for people to vote in the first place. Some of the new laws, notably those limiting the number of days for early voting, have little plausible connection to battling fraud.
These statutes are not neutral. Their greatest impact will be to reduce turnout among African Americans, Latinos and the young. It is no accident that these groups were key to Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 — or that the laws in question are being enacted in states where Republicans control state governments. [...]
In part because of a surge of voters who had not cast ballots before, the United States elected its first African American president in 2008. Are we now going to witness a subtle return of Jim Crow voting laws?
So what are these laws that EJ Dionne find so Jim Crow like? Let's take a look:The laws in question include requiring voter identification cards at the polls, limiting the time of early voting, ending same-day registration and making it difficult for groups to register new voters.
Let's examine each of these "problematic" laws.
First, the requirement of valid ID to vote, has to be one of the oldest canards ever. Asking anyone, black, white, purple, green or yellow for valid ID at the voting booth is just plain common sense. How is it that something as precious as your vote should not require valid ID, but something as meaningless as a video store membership does? What truly gets me about this phony ID argument is that the same Democrats who see racism in asking for valid ID to vote, do not see racism in asking for valid ID for the very social programs they peddle to minorities.
When it comes to limiting early voting, I am still scratching my head trying to figure out how this is Jim Crow like. Quite frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to vote weeks or a month in advance of an election day. Remember back in 2000 when it was discovered the night before the election day that Bush had a past DUI? Well, if you voted early and you found that information troubling, there is nothing you could have done to have changed your vote. Early voting really just helps politicians bank votes before election day. The more votes they can bank before election day, the less they have to worry about screwing up in the final stretch.
Again I still cannot see how limiting the number of days of early voting is racist. Unless of course you believe that minorities are too lazy to make it to the polls on election day, now that is racist.
Same day voter registration is clearly designed for voter fraud. There are years between elections, so why does someone need to wait all the way until election day to register to vote? How is it even possible for election boards to verify a voter on the same day they are allowed to vote? Couple same day registration with weak ID, like student IDs and you are off to Voter Fraud City. Again how is eliminating same day voting racist, unless you believe minorities are incapable of getting the act together in a timely fashion.
Finally regarding groups registering people to vote. We have seen all the fun and games that goes on with ACORN's voter drives. Again, what is so difficult that any individual (minority or otherwise) cannot just register to vote on their own?
Voting, like all our rights, come with responsibilities. You are responsible for getting your act together to vote. That means studying candidates records, learning the issues, registering in a timely fashion and yes, safeguarding your vote against fraud. The idea that minorities need special gimmicks, special rules or extra time to accomplish these responsibilities both insulting and racist.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: Politico
Via: The Washington Post
CNN: New Orleans, Louisiana (CNN) – As speculation mounts about his presidential ambitions, Texas Gov. Rick Perry delivered a rousing and unapologetic defense of conservative principles on Saturday at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans.
Perry repeatedly brought an audience of hundreds of Republican activists to their feet with a small government message reminiscent of the one that helped him win an unprecedented third term as governor last November.
Perry said there is "too much spending, too much interfering and too much apologizing" in Washington.
"Stand up!," Perry thundered. "Let's speak with pride about our morals and our values and redouble our effort to elect more conservative Republicans. Let's stop this American downward spiral!"
Perry made no mention of his political plans and avoided the media by slipping out the back of the hotel where the conference was held following his speech.
But it was clear that the governor was positioning himself as a conservative heavyweight with a credible economic record should he decide to join the crowded Republican presidential field. [MORE]
I watched the speech and I really did like what I heard. However, I have to admit, I have not done my homework on Perry's record, so I cannot say whether or not I believe he is the real deal. (Texas readers, help me out. What should I start looking at regarding the Perry record?)
From the speech I get the impression that Perry is a fighter who won't wither under the Obama and the left's assault. (Again, Texas readers help me out, is Perry a barroom brawler or just another lightweight with a big mouth?).
I am already hearing some of the left's attacks on Perry (secessionist and "another Texas governor" = Bush). I don't see these arguments holding much water in the face of the current state of the nation. (Seceding from an out of control Washington sounds quite sane and who care where the guy is from if he really has a record of creating a job friendly environment).
If Perry's record is the real deal, he could easily become the conservative candidate the base is looking for.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: CNN
Video h/t: The Right Scoop
ABC News: Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain declined to sign Susan B Anthony List’s Pro-Life Presidential Pledge, while the organization says five other GOP 2012 candidates have signed the pledge.
SBL List called on each GOP presidential candidate to agree to four specific anti-abortion pledges including only nominating pro-life judges and selecting pro-life appointees to key positions in their administrations if they were elected president.
Cain issued a statement to explain why he chose not to sign the pledge. He said he agrees with the first three parts of the pledge because he “adamantly” supports the appointing pro-life judges and selecting pro-life appointees to his Cabinet and the Executive Branch as well ending taxpayer funding for abortions, but he had a problem with the last part of the pledge.
“The fourth requirement demands that I 'advance' the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As president, I would sign it, but Congress must advance the legislation,” he said. “I have been a consistent and unwavering champion of pro life issues. In no way does this singular instance of clarification denote an abandonment of the pro-life movement, but instead, is a testament to my respect for the balance of power and the role of the presidency.” [MORE]
As several of you pointed out in the comment section of the Romney post, Herman Cain has also declined to sign the same pledge. So what is the difference? Simple, it is a matter of trust. For Herman Cain, there isn't anything in his record to question his sincerity on the abortion issue. Not so for Mitt Romney. Everyone knows that Romney has changed positions on this issue (along with a few other issues).
Fair or unfair people will question the true motives of Romney's decision. Is his refusal exactly what he states or is Mitt reverting to his old ways. That is why for Herman Cain, refusing to sign SBA List's pledge won't effect him as much as it will Romney.
On the plus side for Romney, Cain's refusal will give Romney some much needed cover.
Via: ABC News
Posts
