Why aren't liberals screaming bloody murder that Obama wants to wiretap the Internet?!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html?th&emc=th
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Monday, May 3, 2010
VA Congressional District 11 GOP Primary, June 8, 2010
I don't know if you've heard much about the June 8 GOP primary for Virginia's 11th Congressional district. I haven't heard much but I've seen a few things. I got some campaign literature in the mail from Herrity that uses the term “conservative” almost as often as it uses the word “the.” Today I ran across a link to a pro-Fimian website that claims that Herrity lied when he said that he's never raised taxes and that he has in fact voted with the Democrats on the Fairfax Board of Supervisors to raise your property taxes, at http://www.herrityhikedtaxes.com/. The website there also says that Herrity voted to create a new taxing district to extend the Metro out to Dulles. The new taxing district will start taxing your home in 2013 at a rate of 20 cents per $100 of assessed value. If they assess your home at $200,000, for instance, then you'd have to pay another $400 per year so that politicians and lobbyists can take the Metro from DC to Dulles on your dime.
Here are the minutes from the Fairfax County Board showing that Herrity voted for a property tax hike from $0.92 to $1.04 per $100, or an extra $0.12 per $100. Again assuming an assessment of $200,000 you'd pay an extra $240 per year on top of the $1840 you'd already be paying, or a total of $2080. That's more than a month and a half of rent for me! http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/bosclerk/summary/2009/09-04-27.pdf
On the Herrity side they're claiming that Fimian used to say that Herrity was "a conservative's conservative" but neglect to mention that Fimian called Herrity that BEFORE Herrity voted to increase your annual real state taxes by $640 (half a month's rent to me). They also claim that Fimian has no record to run on, but of course that's always true of anyone who hasn't had a previous career in politics.
I think that the worst case for Fimian, ironically, comes from Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor's endorsement of him. Both sides are treating Cantor as though he were the conservative he claims to be, but I just calculated his National Taxpayer's Union lifetime average on spending, taxes and regulation, and it comes to a paltry 69.78 out of 100. In my book that's only a D+. John McCain, whom some conservatives in the last presidential election were saying is "as bad a Obama," actually has a lifetime record of 77.88, or a C+ in my book--a whole letter grade better than Cantor. (Obama actually has a Senate average of 9.33, what I call a K+, so far below an F that Obama couldn't even aspire to get as high as an F.) Still, Herrity has a list of endorsements from a gaggle of local GOP politicians about whom I know nothing and who could be, especially here in northern Virginia, a bunch of liberal, tax-and-spend, gun-control-freak RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).
I've noticed, furthermore, that in politics friendships often transcend or ignore political ideology in ways that ideological activists like me often find hard to understand. Back in Iowa, for instance, I knew a conservative small-town business owner who loved my political columns and voted Republican in most races, but voted for an exceptionally liberal Democrat for the local state house repeatedly because the business owner went to high school with the candidate. Even though his high school chum voted for everything the business owner hated about liberal policies, the business owner proved exceedingly reluctant to consider voting for his chum's conservative opponent. I never did ask for whom he ultimately voted, but if I had to bet real money (if I had any) I'd bet that he reverted to traditional form and voted for his liberal chum over the ideologically-compatible conservative Republican. So while an endorsement from Cantor doesn't say that Fimian's a conservative like Fimian claims, it also doesn't say that Fimian's not a conservative either, and we do know that Herrity has voted to raise taxes at least twice. I’ve always thought that politician endorsements of political candidates generally carry little water (and less information).
I'll try to keep an eye out for more information. On local races of this sort without much attention from the national media (both liberal and alternative) it's harder to get real information. Much of what I’ve read has shed more heat than light, consisting mostly of name-calling and personal attacks rather than information. Based on the little I know so far, however, Fimian seems like the more conservative candidate.
Here are the minutes from the Fairfax County Board showing that Herrity voted for a property tax hike from $0.92 to $1.04 per $100, or an extra $0.12 per $100. Again assuming an assessment of $200,000 you'd pay an extra $240 per year on top of the $1840 you'd already be paying, or a total of $2080. That's more than a month and a half of rent for me! http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/bosclerk/summary/2009/09-04-27.pdf
On the Herrity side they're claiming that Fimian used to say that Herrity was "a conservative's conservative" but neglect to mention that Fimian called Herrity that BEFORE Herrity voted to increase your annual real state taxes by $640 (half a month's rent to me). They also claim that Fimian has no record to run on, but of course that's always true of anyone who hasn't had a previous career in politics.
I think that the worst case for Fimian, ironically, comes from Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor's endorsement of him. Both sides are treating Cantor as though he were the conservative he claims to be, but I just calculated his National Taxpayer's Union lifetime average on spending, taxes and regulation, and it comes to a paltry 69.78 out of 100. In my book that's only a D+. John McCain, whom some conservatives in the last presidential election were saying is "as bad a Obama," actually has a lifetime record of 77.88, or a C+ in my book--a whole letter grade better than Cantor. (Obama actually has a Senate average of 9.33, what I call a K+, so far below an F that Obama couldn't even aspire to get as high as an F.) Still, Herrity has a list of endorsements from a gaggle of local GOP politicians about whom I know nothing and who could be, especially here in northern Virginia, a bunch of liberal, tax-and-spend, gun-control-freak RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).
I've noticed, furthermore, that in politics friendships often transcend or ignore political ideology in ways that ideological activists like me often find hard to understand. Back in Iowa, for instance, I knew a conservative small-town business owner who loved my political columns and voted Republican in most races, but voted for an exceptionally liberal Democrat for the local state house repeatedly because the business owner went to high school with the candidate. Even though his high school chum voted for everything the business owner hated about liberal policies, the business owner proved exceedingly reluctant to consider voting for his chum's conservative opponent. I never did ask for whom he ultimately voted, but if I had to bet real money (if I had any) I'd bet that he reverted to traditional form and voted for his liberal chum over the ideologically-compatible conservative Republican. So while an endorsement from Cantor doesn't say that Fimian's a conservative like Fimian claims, it also doesn't say that Fimian's not a conservative either, and we do know that Herrity has voted to raise taxes at least twice. I’ve always thought that politician endorsements of political candidates generally carry little water (and less information).
I'll try to keep an eye out for more information. On local races of this sort without much attention from the national media (both liberal and alternative) it's harder to get real information. Much of what I’ve read has shed more heat than light, consisting mostly of name-calling and personal attacks rather than information. Based on the little I know so far, however, Fimian seems like the more conservative candidate.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
CBS News Online Poll Results
A CBS News online poll currently shows 68% give Obama an F on the economy, 60% on foreign policy, 79% on health care, 32% on Afghanistan (not a majority but a plurality), 36% on Iraq (again a plurality), 58% on terrorism, 55% on energy and the environment, 59% on social issues, 78% on bipartisanship, and 64% on his overall job. These are staggeringly bad numbers, and the funny thing is that he gets his least-bad results for the one area on which liberals most oppose him--Afghanistan! Although I gave Obama an F in most areas, I did give him a D on Afghanistan because while he's been losing the war there (much as Bush spent years losing the war in Iraq before he agreed to McCain's surge) he hasn't cut and run like the John Edwards leftists want him to (when they're not too busy cheating on their spouses to care about foreign policy).
Given Obama’s imposition of fascist health care on us, it's no surprise that Obama scores worst on health care, where 79% give him an F, but note that an almost identical share (78%) gives him an F on bipartisanship. Obama made a big deal during the 2008 presidential campaign claiming he would govern with bipartisan support. The liberal media spread Obama's claim far and wide, even though Obama, according to the National Taxpayers Union ratings, has the most liberal voting record on spending, taxes and regulation of any member of the Senate. Mushy moderates tend to fall for such liberal media claims, but the viciously partisan imposition of fascist health care by Obama and his Democrat allies in Congress has, for the moment, revealed to mushy moderates (and even some mushy liberals who are wishing they'd supported Hillary in the Democrat primaries) the preposterous fraud behind Obama's claims to bipartisanship. Obama's fraudulent bipartisan claims should serve as a salient lesson to mushy moderates and mushy liberals not to believe liberal media propaganda about Democrats. People have short political memories, however, so I wouldn't count on mushies learning any long-term political lessons, although I'd be happy to have them prove me wrong.
To vote in the poll and see the results, you can go to http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6116297-503544.html?tag= and then scroll down.
Given Obama’s imposition of fascist health care on us, it's no surprise that Obama scores worst on health care, where 79% give him an F, but note that an almost identical share (78%) gives him an F on bipartisanship. Obama made a big deal during the 2008 presidential campaign claiming he would govern with bipartisan support. The liberal media spread Obama's claim far and wide, even though Obama, according to the National Taxpayers Union ratings, has the most liberal voting record on spending, taxes and regulation of any member of the Senate. Mushy moderates tend to fall for such liberal media claims, but the viciously partisan imposition of fascist health care by Obama and his Democrat allies in Congress has, for the moment, revealed to mushy moderates (and even some mushy liberals who are wishing they'd supported Hillary in the Democrat primaries) the preposterous fraud behind Obama's claims to bipartisanship. Obama's fraudulent bipartisan claims should serve as a salient lesson to mushy moderates and mushy liberals not to believe liberal media propaganda about Democrats. People have short political memories, however, so I wouldn't count on mushies learning any long-term political lessons, although I'd be happy to have them prove me wrong.
To vote in the poll and see the results, you can go to http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6116297-503544.html?tag= and then scroll down.
Democrats Could Lose Even Old Safe Seats
As the New York Times story at the link below demonstrates, even the liberal media have to admit that the Democrats' creation of massive new Big Business subsidies and shoving of fascist health care down our throats have created such a backlash against the Democrats that they might lose even some of their traditionally safe seats in Congress. It's the very likelihood that Democrats will suffer major losses in November that leads them to their current scorched earth policy, trying to impose as much fascist control as possible over our lives now, knowing that when they're back in the minority they can use the filibuster to stop Americans from repealing the fascism that Democrats are imposing on us now. I don’t expect Democrats to lose the 40 House seats required to lose their majority entirely this November alone, nor to lose the Senate (which would require Democrats to lose every competitive contest). I do expect, however, that they will suffer substantially more than the traditional midterm congressional losses, losing their ability to overcoming virtually any filibuster in the Senate while losing a practical, working House majority in support of most of their fascist policies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/politics/25campaign.html?th&emc=th
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/politics/25campaign.html?th&emc=th
GM Used TARP to "Repay" Loan
You might recall that on October 3, 2008, Democrats in Congress passed a massive bailout of Wall Street investment firms called TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) optimistically (or disingenuously) estimated would cost "only" $700 billion of your tax dollars. Although President Bush supported the massive TARP bailout of Big Business, not a single Republican in the House or Senate supported it.
Seeing big financial institutions get a government bailout, the Big Three American auto companies, GM, Ford and Chrysler, went begging to the federal government on November 19, 2008 to get their own multi-billion-dollar bailout. Congressional Democrats and President Bush agreed to an auto bailout bill that the CBO again optimistically estimated would cost "only" $15 billion. Conservative Republicans in the Senate, however, filibustered the auto bailout. Of 41 Republicans in the Senate, only 10 liberal or mushy moderates ones voted to kill the filibuster, along with 40 Democrats and the Senate's two liberal "independents" (who caucus with the Democrats). A supermajority of 31 Republicans (just more than three-fourths) joined 4 Democrats in supporting the filibuster. Without 60 votes to kill the filibuster, the Democrats failed to bring this second Big Business bailout to a vote, and it died.
Not to be deterred by Congress, President Bush unconstitutionally used an "executive order" to amend the first massive bailout law, TARP, to allow himself to give to the auto companies some of the money intended to bail out financial firms. GM and Chrysler eagerly took the TARP money, but Ford executives, wanting to keep their jobs, changed their minds. (Once Obama became president, he used the Bush-Democrat bailout of GM to force the old GM CEO to resign.)
On February 18, 2009, GM and Chrysler again approached the federal government, hats in hand, begging for another bailout. On February 24, Obama announced in an address before the joint session of Congress that he would give GM and Chrysler another $15 billion of your tax money. (It amazes me that liberal Democrats still run around claiming that it's Republicans and not liberal Democrats who support Big Business.)
You might have noticed recently that the new CEO of GM has been running TV ads where he crows about how GM has paid back the billions of dollars of your tax money that the federal government gave GM so that the United Auto Workers could continue to be the most overpaid union workers in the world. As Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) reports in the two stories below, however, Obama's GM CEO should be eating crow instead: TARP's own inspector general, Neil Barofsky, reports that GM merely used more TARP money to "pay back" the subsidies, which came largely from TARP money in the first place! So GM's much-vaunted repayment is half like using your VISA card to pay off your MasterCard--and half like using your VISA card to repay your VISA card! I must say that the Democrats' capacity for blatant deception never ceases to amaze me.
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/charles-grassley-gm-bailout/2010/04/23/id/356756?s=al&promo_code=9CE6-1
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/22/grassley-slams-gm-administration-loans-repaid-bailout-money/
Seeing big financial institutions get a government bailout, the Big Three American auto companies, GM, Ford and Chrysler, went begging to the federal government on November 19, 2008 to get their own multi-billion-dollar bailout. Congressional Democrats and President Bush agreed to an auto bailout bill that the CBO again optimistically estimated would cost "only" $15 billion. Conservative Republicans in the Senate, however, filibustered the auto bailout. Of 41 Republicans in the Senate, only 10 liberal or mushy moderates ones voted to kill the filibuster, along with 40 Democrats and the Senate's two liberal "independents" (who caucus with the Democrats). A supermajority of 31 Republicans (just more than three-fourths) joined 4 Democrats in supporting the filibuster. Without 60 votes to kill the filibuster, the Democrats failed to bring this second Big Business bailout to a vote, and it died.
Not to be deterred by Congress, President Bush unconstitutionally used an "executive order" to amend the first massive bailout law, TARP, to allow himself to give to the auto companies some of the money intended to bail out financial firms. GM and Chrysler eagerly took the TARP money, but Ford executives, wanting to keep their jobs, changed their minds. (Once Obama became president, he used the Bush-Democrat bailout of GM to force the old GM CEO to resign.)
On February 18, 2009, GM and Chrysler again approached the federal government, hats in hand, begging for another bailout. On February 24, Obama announced in an address before the joint session of Congress that he would give GM and Chrysler another $15 billion of your tax money. (It amazes me that liberal Democrats still run around claiming that it's Republicans and not liberal Democrats who support Big Business.)
You might have noticed recently that the new CEO of GM has been running TV ads where he crows about how GM has paid back the billions of dollars of your tax money that the federal government gave GM so that the United Auto Workers could continue to be the most overpaid union workers in the world. As Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) reports in the two stories below, however, Obama's GM CEO should be eating crow instead: TARP's own inspector general, Neil Barofsky, reports that GM merely used more TARP money to "pay back" the subsidies, which came largely from TARP money in the first place! So GM's much-vaunted repayment is half like using your VISA card to pay off your MasterCard--and half like using your VISA card to repay your VISA card! I must say that the Democrats' capacity for blatant deception never ceases to amaze me.
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/charles-grassley-gm-bailout/2010/04/23/id/356756?s=al&promo_code=9CE6-1
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/22/grassley-slams-gm-administration-loans-repaid-bailout-money/
Friday, April 23, 2010
Socialist Porn?
The historically savvy among you might think I'm referring to the infamous pornography produced under the rule of the German National Socialist chancellor, Adolf Hitler, but as the following story shows, I'm actually referring to the use of taxpayer-purchased computers at the Securities and Exchange Commission, a federal agency dedicated to socializing as much of American capital markets as possible. While the SEC bureaucrats pretend to regulate capital markets to protect investors, they actually spend your tax dollars surfing the web for Internet porn! With thriving free markets in porn, we hardly need socialist porn, but the following story sure gives me a great laugh. I say let's fire the whole lot of them, close down the SEC, and let them go home to surf for Internet porn on their own computers! :-D
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/23/republicans-slam-sec-porn-surfing-report/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/23/republicans-slam-sec-porn-surfing-report/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)