If it were Bush...

I would like it if those of progressive ideology please explain to me why I didn't see post after post after post on Facebook supporting Rand Paul in his attempt to get Eric Holder to confirm that due process was not gone on US soil. Due process was killed with the patriot act, under the Bush Admin and has continued to be dead under the Obama administration (see drone killings among other things). C'mon people, at least pretend to be consistent...

I was taking a quiz and ran into a freaking liberal lie. Okay, it's a lie of semantics, a lie of omission, but it is none the less disgusting. In 2011 Congress decided to help further destroy social security by enacting a 'payroll tax cut'. That was bullshit. They began taking less from workers for the social security trust fund, that 'untouchable' account that is just about broke. And the coo and coo and coo about how they 'cut taxes'. No they didn't, it isn't a tax to begin with, it is a contribution, mandatory sure, but not defined as a tax in the code. This never should have happened and it should be allowed to expire, or be repealed TODAY.

It is funny though, if you as a liberal if we should be able to privatize our social security, they mostly say no...but...but...

Here is the question with the stupid and impossible to choose answers:

2. In 2012, the payroll tax cut implemented in 2011 to help stimulate the economy was extended another year, sending middle-income workers home with an average savings of $400 more a year. Where do you fall on the extension of the payroll tax cut?

The US Capitol building in 2011. (Carolyn Kaster / AP)

There should be a flat tax rate, no matter what the taxpayer’s income.

If the economy is truly on the road to recovery, why extend the payroll tax cut? Everyone should have to pay his or her fair share.

Times are still tough. The current payroll tax cut is a good idea, and hopefully people will spend that little bit of extra money to help stimulate the economy.

Middle-income workers are the backbone of the American economy and deserve even bigger tax breaks. Next year let’s make the average savings $500.

Middle and low-income workers should be taxed far less than the wealthy. Let's make the payroll tax cut permanent.

 Previous

Next 

Off the cuff rant

I am not in the mood to research this, really, I am not. For instance, I know off the top of my head that when someone in a presidential administration is found in contempt by Congress, normally the DOJ does NOT prosecute. Google it. Many times in my life this has happened. Heck, I do believe there were contempt charges in the dastardly firing of prosecutors by the Bush Administration.

And there is the freaking rub.

Bush politically (as did most of his predecessors) fired some prosecutors. No one died because of his actions. The fall out was purely political and the firing was purely political. Politics suck.

In this case, two Americans are dead (Brian Terry, and Jamie Zapata).  Okay, I felt their memories deserved a little research. And hundreds of Mexican's are dead as well, some of them-GASP-women and children.

Doesn't it make you wonder why the Democrats don't give a rip about people when it suits them? At least we cold hearted republicans admit we want to execute criminals and use enhanced interrogation techniques. We want to be able to use deadly force to protect ourselves and those we love. Not the Democrats, the only killing they admit they like is the newly conceived.  Other than that they claim to love human lives.

Why do the facts not bear this out?  Ruby Ridge, wasn't that a Democrat? Waco? How about that Cuban kid...oh, wait...no one died. Sorry.  Now again, dead people, dead Americans, and the Dems are crowing about the fact that the DOJ is not going to cooperate with Congress, going as far as claiming executive privilege. And claiming that this proves there is no THERE there. Huh? If there is nothing in the documents, release them already.

Let's get this straight:
1. Panties on the head = calls for impeachment
2. Dead border patrol and ICE agents = a win for democrats against those cold, nazi-like repukes.

C'mon, comment folks, it's why I have a blog. I will not block your comment. Prove me wrong, show me where this is about something other than covering up the Presidents knowledge of the death of Brian Terry and how it was linked to Fast and Furious. Don't bring up the Bush admin, I know they had a similar program, but they were able to track the weapons it seems, and none of them were used to kill Federal Agents.

No Links Needed

I am not going to link the articles, we all know that the President has used the power of executive order to try to grant amnesty to so-called 'dreamers'. These are those who were brought to this country illegally as children (up to the age of 16, another debate altogether), and so far have been upstanding citizens and are either attending school or are planning on joining the military.
Here is the shock for y'all, other than the insane amount of paperwork and overtime for already stressed federal workers (lol), I agree with the premise.
One caveat however; if an illegal alien fills out the paperwork and does not qualify for the program that illegal alien is immediately deported along with the rest of his family. (I use his to mean both genders, like 'actor', so I am clean there). And if they do indeed qualify, they pay out of state tuition, because they have proven to not be legal residents of the state in which they reside (until the amnesty thing kicks in of course
).
This caveat would make this a bill that would pass both the House and Senate, right? Great compromise, right?
It'll never happen, just like the executive order will never come to fruition, it's unfunded, and impossible to enact.
Pure politics, as usual, from the Constant Campaigner in Chief, a the expense of some hardworking kids who could benefit from the program.

Obvious, but noteworthy

So last week we were all told we shouldn't elect Mitt Romney because he allegedly bullied someone back in high school. The poor kid who had his hair cut is no longer with us, so he couldn't be reached for comment, but his family said the story was a little 'embellished'. All over the papers, months of research.
Right in our current President's own book are many descriptions of using illegal drugs and then either driving or getting into someone else's car. Crickets from the media in 2008, crickets from the media today.

The double standard has become so obvious to possibly not being noteworthy, you say, and I say that is exactly why it is noteworthy. We simply accept that the people who give us news are in the tank for one political party. Oh, except for faux news, right? Why is it such a big deal that Fox leans right? Every other outlet leans left, admittedly, but it's Armageddon because Fox leans right? And we accept that, hanging our heads in shame if we're caught watching Fox (for the stories of course, we read the stories).

Our President made statements on the campaign trail, heck, all through his life, that were and still are counter to what the wonderful country stands for, and many people just don't know this. Those who do are treated are right wing nuts, or are in agreement with the socialistic direction he is taking the country.

Ahhhhh...yanno what? I am sitting in the shade, selling books for charity. Books I have collected on my own time, not even taking gas money from the proceeds, which will all go to youth groups.


But I'm a heartless conservative.

"White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival..."

So, now to go read the article. Okay the following is the meat of the short article:

"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said.

That was after both senior adviser David Axelrod and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs left open the door on whether Obama would support reinstating the doctrine.

There is ambiguity here, the statement does not say that the President would veto a bill that included the fairness doctrine. Saying he does not think it should be reinstated and saying he would veto are two very different things.

this leaves it up to the socialists in congress to decide.
Do we trust them not to gut the first amendment?

Perhaps

Perhaps this is another sign that Mr. Obama will not be able to completely install socialism.

The bill was passed 246-183 with no Republican help.

The democrats own this particular fiasco, there is no way to pin this to anyone else. This pork laden, socialistic boondoggle belongs to Mr. Obama, simple as that. Even the slobbering media can not blame the fall out from this on anyone but Mr. Obama.

The man is lying, flat out lying

We have inherited an economic crisis as deep and as dire as any since the Great Depression. Economists from across the spectrum have warned that if we don’t act immediately, millions more jobs will be lost, and national unemployment rates will approach double digits.

The unemployment rate in 1982 was 9.71 according to this site. Mortgage rates were over 10%, that was the worst recession since the depression, this is a bump in the road compared to that time. Gas was higher, food was higher, and the cost of living was higher.

Mr. Obama has got to stop campaigning, he is President now, he needs to drop the rhetoric and act like a President, not like a spoiled child.

Census

Now our President is trying to oliticize something that is supposed to be apolitical. By handing the census over to a political hack such as Emanuel ( I would have said the same about Rove) is wrong and not enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. This is why he is doing it:

Critics note that the method of counting can skew the census. Democrats have long advocated using mathematical estimates, a practice known as "sampling," to count urban residents and immigrants. Republicans say the Constitution requires a physical head count, which entails going door-to-door.

And this is how it should be done:

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

NOT the purvey of the legislative branch, the above is from article 1, section 2, meaning the legislative branch is in charge of the census. This is incredible, absolutely incredible, and must be stopped.