Viewing 28 - 31 out of 31 Blogs.

<< First  < Previous | Page:  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |

H/T to Debbie at Right Truth for pointing this out in her great piece, " "We Will Ruin Alaska... (No We Won't.)"

FOXNews.com has the disturbing news, which should be viewed as a symptom of the disease that is our current Congress:

WASHINGTON — The political vision of a summer gas tax holiday died a quick death in Congress, losing to a view that federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel will have to go up if they go anywhere. Despite calls from the presidential campaign trail for a Memorial Day-to-Labor Day tax freeze, lawmakers quickly concluded — with a prod from the construction industry — that having $9 billion less to spend on highways could create a pre-election specter of thousands of lost jobs. Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel. wrote:

Thank God for rare voices of congressional sanity:

Congress should first reduce spending on pet projects, known as earmarks, argued Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. I'm not going to let the Senate spend all this money when nobody is looking, especially when we refuse to stop wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on earmarks. wrote:

It is really too bad Senator DeMint didn't run for president, but back to the issue of the congressional vermin and their ridiculous abuse of taxpayers. I was perusing the FY 2008 budget and noticed a tiny bit of bureaucratic waste here and there:

Department of Education - $58.6 billion

Department of Housing and Urban Development - $44.4 billion

Environmental Protection Agency - $7.8 billion

Department of Homeland Security - $43.2 billion (including the $28 million thrown away on a virtual fence pilot program which didn't work as anyone with a brain could have predicted.)

Department of Labor - $52.3 billion

Department of Treasury - $11.1 billion for the IRS alone

Let's see, where could one look to find $9 billion for highway construction projects? It is a tough one, just ask the personal power hungry libiots in Congress. No, the answer is not "raise the gasoline tax," but if you guessed that, you too could be a senator or representative. The Departments of Education, HUD, Labor, and the EPA should not even exist or at least should all be slashed by 50%. Either solution would eliminate $80 to $160 billion in wasted taxpayer dollars and for those of you in Congress, that is more than the $9 billion shortfall.

Problem solved! All that needs to be done now is to get the federal government to get its filthy paws out of the cookie jars of the American citizens and stick to its responsibilities. Easier said than done, I realize, but the waste that is Capitol Hill cannot be exposed often enough! De-centralize dis-functions the federal government should not have. Let individual states deal with education and similar issues. Stop taking our money and distributing it among your cronies and victim classes to buy votes. Implement The Fair Tax or a flat tax and cut the IRS down to a reasonable size. Our leaders, as pathetic as most of them are, should follow the "KISS" principle and Keep It Simple STUPID!

Tags: Gas Prices Taxes Spending Waste

The Washington Post can always be counted on for at least two things, free advertising for Barack Obama (under the guise of articles and editorials) and immigration sob stories designed to portray illegal aliens and people that refuse to learn English as helpless of victims of the evil that is The United States of America.

I can't help but struggle to comprehend the mammoth contradiction that is the immigration sob story. Why on earth would the immigrants willingly immigrate to such an awful place? Why on earth would they leave the culture they adore for a land with such an apparent lack of opportunity? Who, in his right mind, leaves the land of milk and honey for the desolate wastelands of another nation? I am truly perplexed, this country is supposed to be such an awful place to live, yet all these people flock here from around the world and people like Alec Baldwin break their promises to leave.

Now we hear of the latest plague upon the victims of our society. This plague is even worse than Alec Baldwin not keeping his word. The Washington Post paints the grim portrait in, "Move to Digital TV Faces Language Barrier":

Hispanic viewers make up about one-third of the U.S. households that rely on antennas to receive over-the-air broadcasts, according to a survey by Knowledge Networks/SRI Home Technology Monitor. And according to a May report released by Nielsen, Hispanic households are among the least prepared for the transition. There are about 608,000 Hispanic residents in the Washington region, according to 2006 estimates by the Census Bureau. Local Spanish-language broadcasters are trying to get the word out about the digital switch, but some are worried that their viewers will wait until the last minute to take the necessary steps to keep watching TV, putting the stations' ratings and advertising dollars at risk. wrote:

So we have a victim class that can be defined by their ethnicity and language, let us ignore the notion of individual responsibility and redistribute some wealth here. As Barack's favorite uncle, Karl (Marx) would say, "to each according to his need and from each according to his ability." Instead of focusing on why these people refuse to learn English or even why they feel entitled to TV, entities such as WaPo do their part to maintain the socialist liberal voting block that is a victim class requiring handouts. Apparently the taxpayer subsidized handouts:

The FCC has been hosting town hall meetings around the country and distributing educational materials in multiple languages, with particular emphasis on Spanish. And the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which is in charge of distributing government-subsidized $40 coupons to help consumers pay for converter boxes that typically cost $50 to $80, operates a Spanish-language hotline that fields about 40 percent of the total calls to the agency. IBM, which is under contract to run the NTIA's call centers, is hiring more operators fluent in Spanish. wrote:

aren't good enough:

Community groups worry that Spanish-speaking viewers still may be left behind. The Rev. Luis Cortés Jr., president of Esperanza USA, a faith-based organization in Philadelphia that has tried to get the word out about the transition, said he suspects that many people with limited incomes won't bother to apply for a converter-box coupon until their TVs don't work. Their eyes glaze over when you say digital because it means nothing to them -- they don't have computers, they don't have iPods, he said. The only national media vehicle in Spanish is TV.\ wrote:

Obviously the solution has four components. First, we subsidize the purchase of computers and iPods for every resident, legal or otherwise, that does not understand English. Second, we force English speaking citizens to pass a Spanish proficiency test within the next 12 months and fine those that are not fluent. Third, all broadcasting is switched to the Spanish language since the host nation should assimilate to the language of immigrants and obviously not the other way around (naturally we ignore all languages other than Spanish unless CAIR begins to complain about the mistreatment on non-Spanish speaking Muslims.) Fourth, and perhaps most urgent, we deploy a task force to force Alec Baldwin to keep his promise.

One must wonder if our founding fathers intended a system of vote buying such as the one that exists in modern times. Pander to and maintain a variety of victim classes to ensure that no one rise above the status of victim-hood. As long as these victims rely on the handouts you forcibly take from the productive to redistribute among the victims, you can rely on the votes and support of those victims.

Tags: English Spanish Victim Class Subsidies

Cross-posted at www.malignantlibiocy.blogivists.com

The man who would bring you Obamunism draped in “hope” for “change” wants the Christian population to trust him with their support for the presidency. Let us ignore the contradiction that would be a Christian supporting Obama and look at the message of the charlatan. His D.C. campaign office (AKA The Washington Post) describes how “Obama Addresses His Faith:”

ST. LOUIS, July 5 — Sen. Barack Obama ended a week’s focus on values by giving a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church a highly personal account of his spiritual journey and a promise that he will make “faith-based” social service “a moral center of my administration.” wrote:

He “ended a week’s focus on values” so he must be relieved to have such unfamiliar subject matter behind him. I’m not saying that I don’t believe Barry has values. I am saying that his values are likely not what he was trying to sell last week… or did he give a speech on Marxism somewhere in there? Perhaps he did make a veiled reference to his plans for Obamunism in St. Louis:

He suggested that he would apply the lessons of his faith to the problems he would face if he became president. “The challenges we face today — war and poverty, joblessness and homelessness, violent streets and crumbling schools — are not simply technical problems in search of a 10-point plan,” he said. “They are moral problems, rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness, in the imperfections of man. And so the values we believe in — empathy and justice and responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors — these cannot only be expressed in our churches and our synagogues, but in our policies and in our laws.” wrote:

The message I receive is that the working people will be required to pay more in taxes to enable us to exercise “empathy and justice and responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors.” Redistribution of wealth is the only way to prove that we are not a nation of “societal indifference and individual callousness.” His type of libiot ideology is largely to blame for the problems he mentions so how insulting is it to the intelligence of his audience that he expects them to believe that the solution can be found in the cause?

How dare he mention joblessness when his party seeks to stifle manufacturing either in the name of the environment or big labor unions? How dare he mention homelessness when his party seemingly has declared war on the productive? Or am I missing how the homelessness problem might be related to joblessness? “Violent streets and crumbling schools,” is this man insane? The left has worked for years to degrade society. They have glorified immorality and fatherless homes. they have made schools shift the focus from education to diversity and important subjects such as trans-gender-sex-education.

The vile purveyor of Obamunism will not admit that he and his ideology support the degradation of society and the ills he laments. He cannot admit that he needs unwed mothers raising children without fathers. He cannot admit that he needs children to receive poor educations and grow into less than productive citizens. The more people that rely on social programs and entitlements, the more people the Obamunists can control. He cannot admit that he needs dependents of the government so that he can justify the confiscation of the productive sector’s labor.

I get the sense that the most genuine Obama moment of the campaign occurred at a gathering with San Francisco elites when Barry didn’t know he was being recorded. Christian voters, Barry wants your support so please be so kind as to ignore what is likely the most honest quote you’ll get from the dope of hope. From The Hill:

Obama told guests at a private event in San Francisco that he was having trouble attracting support in rural Pennsylvania because people living there had become “bitter” over their economic circumstances and as a result “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” wrote:

At least he didn’t come out and say “hillbillies” because that would just be tacky! Wait! He chose his words carelessly… and… and they weren’t the words he’s known for twenty years so “bitter” and “cling” have joined Rev. Wright, Wesley Clark, and Bill Ayers in the pile of items from which to distance himself.

Back to the article by his campaign (or Washington Post if you want to be picky.) He has apparently thrown Christians a bone by indicating that there might be an excuse that might not be good enough for slaughtering an unborn child:

Last week, Obama expressly came out against using “mental distress” as a justification for late-term abortions, a position widely seen as the latest in a string of moves toward the political center but one aimed specifically at Christian conservatives. wrote:

Oh, well in that case, every Christian should see it Barry as the pro-life candidate! Not so fast though, he still thinks abortion at any stage is acceptable as long as it isn’t a result of “feeling blue”:

“Historically, I have been a strong believer in a woman’s right to choose, with her doctor, her pastor, her family,” he said Saturday. “And I’ve been consistent in saying you have to have a health exception on any significant restrictions or bans on abortions, including late-term abortions. “It can be defined by physical health. It can be defined by serious clinical mental health diseases,” he continued. But “it’s not just a matter of feeling blue.” wrote:

On a personal note, I believe that Obama’s pro-abortion activism would disqualify him from receiving a single Christian vote. What he did in the Illinois Senate to kill common sense legislation to protect babies that were born alive (botched abortions) might disqualify him from having a soul. From Jill Staneck:

On Jan. 10, 2005, newly elected U.S. Sen. Barack Obama visited former colleagues and staffers at the Illinois state Capitol, where he had served seven years as state senator. I happened to be at the Capitol that day, too, and a friend and I took the opportunity to speak to Obama, who had not yet achieved rock-star status and was still approachable. We were in Springfield to lobby for passage of the state Born Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. Obama spoke against the legislation in 2001 and 2002 and single-handedly defeated it in committee in 2003. My friend stood in Obama’s path and said, “Senator, we are going to pass Born Alive here in Illinois this year.” Obama smiled smoothly and agreed, “I think you will,” adding, “I would have voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois had it been worded the same as the federal bill. I think that’s the position the Democrats should take.” There’s just one thing he forgot to mention: Obama had stopped his committee from adding the federal wording. With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005. wrote:

Christians who oppose abortion are apparently supposed to be so caught up in “change” that we will accept the notion of not allowing abortions to a mother just because she’s “feeling blue” as a reasonable compromise on the issue. (Of course, in my opinion the life of an innocent child is not something open to compromise, but hey I’m not an enlightened elitist.) Christians’ intelligence and character are being insulted by Obama’s faith based pandering. Not only are we dumb enough to believe what this snake oil salesman is saying, we are greedy! We would not be charitable and giving; therefore, we need Obamunism and its wealth redistribution plan to care for the needy.

I sure am glad that American Christians have the man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years (when not campaigning for something) and never heard the controversial parts of the sermons, to lecture us regarding faith!

Tags: Obama Religion Abortion Election

Cross-posted at www.conservablogs.com/conservativecommonman

The typical "woe is business" sob story drips with even more typical liberal hypocrisy. Business is the enemy and is always taking advantage of poor unsuspecting, ignorant people... that is except when we can use the plight of business to further our open border agenda! The fact that the NY Times has such a ridiculous whine fest on behalf of business in today's spewing, is rendered even more idiotic by the fact that the next president is guaranteed to coddle illegal aliens. Their side of the issue has already won the presidency, but apparently that isn't enough.

When a liberal rag has an agenda, no level is too low to sell it. In fact, the first example of the poor business given in the offending article "Employers Fight Tough Measures On Immigration," details the plight of a business that didn't have to hire illegal aliens... but the point is they might have to someday!

Mike Gilsdorf, the owner of a 37-year-old landscaping nursery in Littleton, Colo., saw the need for action by businesses last winter when he advertised with the Labor Department, as he does every year, for 40 seasonal workers at market-rate wages to plant, prune and carry his shrubs in the summer heat. Only one local worker responded to the notice, he said, and then did not show up for the job. Mr. Gilsdorf was able to fill his labor force with legal immigrants from Mexico through a federal guest worker program. But that program has a tight annual cap, and Mr. Gilsdorf realized that he might not be so lucky next year. His business could fail, he said, and then even his American workers would lose their jobs. “We’re not hiring illegals, we’re not paying under the table,” Mr. Gilsdorf said. “But if we don’t get in under the cap and nobody is answering our ads, we don’t have employees.” His group, Colorado Employers for Immigration Reform, is pressing Congress for a much larger and more flexible guest worker program. wrote:

I am too ignorant to see how the wages Mr. Gilsdorf pays are "market-rate" if he can't find legal workers to employ at those wages. Oops, I keep forgetting the fact that he can find legal workers to employ! I would suggest that as soon as he can't find legal workers to employ at his "market-rate" then it is no longer "market-rate." Are we to assume that there is full employment in his part of Colorado? If not, how can "market-rate" wages not attract employees?

Mr. Gilsdorf is not alone in his agony. An electronics assembly company in California has 20 out of 90 assembly workers whose numbers don't match the records of the Social Security Administration. Apparently anti-discrimination rules prevent the company from checking into the discrepancy. How exactly does that work? There is a system known as E-verify, perhaps this particular company might want to use it for the 20 employees mentioned. What would be the down-side of that?

Because of the antidiscrimination rules, the executive cannot check to be certain that the 20 workers, mainly Hispanic women, are illegal. Moreover, they have advanced through training, she said, and excel at their jobs, which require the repetitive assembly of tiny parts by hand, often under microscopes. “I can’t replace those people,” the executive said. She said that despite offering competitive wages from $9 to $17 an hour, the company had failed over the years in repeated efforts to attract nonimmigrant workers because of the state’s tight technology labor market and because of the nature of the work, exacting and tedious. If the workers were fired or arrested, she said, she could fail to meet her contracts. “If we have to terminate 20 people, that’s going to jeopardize 100 other jobs of people who are legal, Americans, people who are making a good living,” she said. Angelo Paparelli, an immigration lawyer who represents the company, said: “This is not an employer who wants to turn a blind eye to lawbreaking. She is facing a tightening of the enforcement vise that does not take into account Congress’s failure to create a workable system.” wrote:

I see. The problem is that Congress failed to give these businesses that employ illegal aliens everything they wanted! McCain, Kennedy and the boys ought to at least get some credit for trying to cater to the American citizen undercutting employers. Heck, if the nasty... gasp... citizens hadn't butted in the congress could have done their duty, which is apparently written in The Constitution as:

The primary function of the Senate and House of Representatives is to ensure the free flow of illegal labor to any company that does not want to pay "market-rate." The rights of non-citizens will be protected before the rights of citizens will be considered and Congress shall pass no law that infringes on the employment opportunities to those that might cross our borders illegally.

Festering cesspools like the NY Times and Washington Post really do take issue with the government when it actually indicates some willingness to follow the will of the electorate. I suppose these liberal mouthpieces are in for happier days given the state of American politics. The next president is highly unlikely to follow the will of the electorate on this issue as both candidates seek to compete for the title of "an illegals best friend." Too many Republican politicians seem to think the path to re-election is to act like Democrat politicians and too many citizens just don't seem to be involved in the nation's affairs. These factors spell gloom for our nation and her citizens, which of course is good news for the liberal rags.

Tags: Election Illegal Immigration

<< First  < Previous | Page:  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |