Hot-Rod Harry is off his meds again

The first thing to go is your memory. The second is any remnant of dignity. Or maybe it's the other way round. Either way, does anyone remember this passionate display from Hot-Rod-Harry on the Senate floor back in late February? (Emphasis mine):

There’s plenty of horror stories being told. All are not true but they are being told all over America.

Good times, good times, no!

But wait what is this? On the same Senate Floor Hot-Rod said this not a month later:

[E]xamples that they think are bad -  I’ve called lies, Mr. President, is simply not true.

Really… I mean… I just… you can’t just… SAY WHAT? You cannot make this stuff up folks. He said it - then he unsaid it and now he’s denying he said it at all. Wow, just WOW. How big are his cojones when he can just simply tell an outright lie, on the Senate floor no less, with such a straight face and get away with it? We’ll in defense of his face I’m not sure he has the facial muscles necessary to actually change his expression so straight face is all we’ve got.

Look Reid has made it his practice to go on the Senate floor and simply tell outright lies knowing that apparently nobody will ever call him on it. Anybody remember him telling the public from the Senate floor that he knows for sure that Mitt Romney hasn’t paid income taxes since like the dawn of time? Or that the Koch brothers are un-American just because they exercise their freedom of speech?

Well, my hope is that come November we can reduce hot-rod harry to a back bencher where he can receive the care he needs in his senior years.

The (In) dispensable Nancy Pelosi

The things I do for you guys. I was trolling over at the Daily Beast (so you don’t have to - you’re welcome) and found this nugget of wisdom from Robert Shrum entitled The Indispensible Nancy Pelosi. The article is effectively telling the readers just how wonderful the former Speaker was and still is. Here's  a few slice of the preverbal ra-ra- that passes for journalism from Shrum (emphasis mine as always):

Republicans turned the Democrats’ leader in the House into the prime reason to keep a Florida district in GOP hands. No wonder they fear her: she’s as responsible for liberal success in Washington as President Obama has been.

Honestly, I can give you no argument here Mr. Shrum, conservatives do indeed fear her but not for the reasons you think. We fear given her role one as of the architects of the most crippling piece of legislation to ever come out of Washington and that it will eventually bring down this great nation of ours if we don’t do something about it and soon. Our fear runs deep and it runs long Mr. Shrum. What Mr. Shrum is touting as her ‘liberal’ successes is exactly why the GOP should be losing sleep over at night. More from Shrum:

So Pelosi had to find her own path to progress - and she did. As Speaker, she not only cajoled her majority into approving the Senate version of Obamacare without amendments - a disagreeable and nearly unprecedented concession from her own members and the only maneuver that could rescue the bill.

So let me see if I have this right, keeping in mind that Shrum’s going in position is that Obamacare, first and foremost, was the right thing to do (which clearly empirical evidence would suggest it is not). Second, even the mighty Pelosi had to bring her caucus kicking and screaming to vote for this steaming fly ridden pile of crap. Remember folks, the Dems had both houses of congress and the Oval Office and still she had to whip them into voting for it. Wow, that was tough. No, they got this remarkably flawed legislation though the House and the Senate using dubious procedure at best and most of that was done by Harry Reid not Pelosi. 

The rest of the dems had no idea just how bad this legislation was because nobody took the time to read it before it was passed. All they heard was the leadership, Pelosi included, touting ‘if you like your doctor’, ‘nobody will lose the insurance they have’, ‘bending the cost curve down’, ‘it’ll be just like Travelocity’, etc. Now the vulnerable Dems can’t seem to get far enough away from this toxic, career ending nonsense.

Finally, we get this Krugmanesque bit from Shrum (emphasis mine):

Earlier, she had held virtually every Democrat in line, all but 11 of her majority, to pass the 2009 Economic Recovery Act without a single Republican vote. The GOP demonized the legislation - for the wrong reason: it wasn't as big as it should have been - but it did prevent a second Great Depression.

Really, not big enough. It was almost $1,000,000,000,000.00, and at that time an increase on the total US debt of almost 10%. Think about that for a moment. The US was 233 years old, and Pelosi et al managed to increase the total debt of the United States by 10% and Shrum is trying to tell us that it wasn’t big enough? 

What boggles my mind it that he now has the advantage of hindsight and even the President said that the shovel ready projects weren’t so, um, shovel ready. So it should be insulting to everyone who reads this tripe from this knuckle headed elite liberals . Shrum writes a column extolling the great and wise Pelosi without addressing her part in creating this mess she has made in the a) insurance market, b) financial market, c) labor market… You get the picture.

Shrum swears that Pelosi is indispensable. I’ve got an experiment. Let’s get rid of Pelosi for a few years and see how well the markets do when the conservatives have both houses of congress and the Oval Office. But, unfortunately that is not up to us it’s up to San Francisco who keep giving us her highness every 2 years and apparently show no signs of voting her out. Thanks SanFran.

The Ants On the Hill

It is easy for us on the right to pick and choose elements of the Liberal’s agenda and ridicule them individually. However, if you look at their agenda en mass the picture becomes clear, at least to me. The stark difference between Liberals and Conservatives is what the role of government should be.

Take a look at this headline:

Obama pitches $1B climate change 'resilience fund' by Laura Barron-Lopez at The Hill

Initially I was going to write a gripping post bitching about yet another waste of taxpayer dollars on some cause that I personally don’t agree with. Then it occurred to me, would I be just as pissed if it was me that directly benefited for government largess?   This thought led me to the (re) realization that the problem is not where the government spends taxpayer dollars - it’s that they are in a position to spend taxpayer dollars at all.

When I lived in Florida I found that if you leave just one measly crumb out on the counter, by morning ants would have somehow found find it. And God forbid if you were to leave a heap of dirty dishes in the sink, because, by the next morning thousands of the little buggers would be all over the kitchen. The point is that where there is food there would soon be ants. The same can be said of our federal government except instead of food, the bait is tax dollars. And it’s not ants it’s the rent-seekers and lobbyist and con artist in the guise of politicians who vie for those dollars.

Each year Americans send over two and a half trillion dollars to Washington. And even that’s not enough to quench their thirst for money so the federal government borrows yet another trillion or so from the Chinese. Now when you have that much money in one place there is no way any self-respecting lobbyist/rent-seeker/politician can resist. I mean is their job, right, it’s what they do. So each year the ants on Capitol Hill begin the feeding frenzy to divide up the spoils provided by the taxpayers. Now imagine that for a moment, $3,700,000,000,000.00 A YEAR! So the real point here is not where they decide to waste the taxpayers’ dollars it’s why in the world we send the dollars to these criminals in the first place.

Back in Florida if I didn’t want to wake up to an army of ants crawling all over my kitchen I would simply take the source of their visits  took away and Voilà- no ants. Thus, if we want to get rid of the constant corruption and cronyism in Washington - take away the source.

Ahhh, you say, if you do that, what about the babies? What about the homeless? What about the jobless?  What about all the great, wonderful things the federal government gives us?

Valid points I suppose, but here is the real question. Do you actually want the Federal government making decision to apply your tax dollars to - say a some bullshit climate change resilience fund? Who on God’s green earth would agree to pay for this crap? My guess is lobbyist/rent-seekers and others who benefit when the federal government disrupts the market and stupidly throws a billion dollars at something that will only benefit the cronies. So, by taking away the tax dollars (and the ability to borrow incessantly) the ants on the hill have no choice but to only apply those dollars to the most important missions such as keeping the country safe.

As for the babbies, the homeless and the jobless, the individual states are in a much better position to take care of these and many other issues now occupying the ants in Washington. I would argue that there is not one thing the Federal government can do (other than national security) better than the individual states can do for themselves. This way of thinking has the added bonus of keeping the states in line as well through competition. If, for example, California decides to raise taxes and build useless high-speed railways that’s their prerogative. However, they can’t bitch when all the folks who are paying for this crap decide to pack up and move to another state . So in California they either change their ways to or go bankrupt (remember there ain’t no money in the till in Washington for a bail out).

Exit homework assignment: for those who still doubt just how much the federal government should do for the electorate, read this essay about Davy Crockett and his views on federally funded welfare.  Spoiler alert - It's always easier to be compassionate with someone else's money. Here’s an excerpt:

 "There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House (of representatives)  many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased – a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Please read it all - it’s worth it.

More guns not less would have minimized CO massacre deaths

Today New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg asked the two candidates for president how they were going to address the massacre in Colorado:

"I mean, there are so many murders with guns every day, it's just got to stop. And instead of the two people – President Obama and [Gov.] Romney – talking in broad things about they want to make the world a better place, [OK], tell us how."

Here's how - start by making it easier (not harder) for law abiding citizens to obtain and carry weapons AT ALL TIMES. My point is - How many would have died in the Aurora massacre if just 1% of the moviegoers were exercising their second amendment rights and packing heat? As it was, the gunman had absolutely no resistance at all. He had a theater full of sheep.

But the liberals' answer - in typical knee-jerk simpleton reaction - is to 'ban all the guns' and the problem will be solved. Of course, this course of action has been proven wrong over and over and over again. Just ask Mayor Rahm Emanuel in Chicago. DC? Since their enforcement of more stringent gun ownership (effectively making it virtually impossible for citizens to obtain weapons) gun related murder rates have skyrocketed.

The answer is more armed citizens not less but this will never be an option for the liberals. Why? because it puts the citizen in control and not the government and that just can't happen. The liberals would much rather sacrifice a few of the electorate than relinquish one iota of control over our lives. Their goal is nothing less than utter and total gun ban. And as usual they are 180 degrees off (just like their view on raising taxes during a recession).

If Romney really wanted to make this event into something positive he should embrace making it easier for citizens to get weapons not harder. It may not be popular with the MSM but it would certainly draw a surefire difference between his vision of America and his opponents'. 

For more evidence that more guns are better see the post right before this one

Exit question: Which of the two gun related events this week will get the most play from the MSM?

More "GOP Hoping America Fails" BS from the left

A few days ago Brent Budowsky had an Op-Ed piece at The Hill where he ties himself in knots trying to portray the GOP as the party that is cheering for the economy to fail all for political gain (emphasis mine):

It is time to talk of patriotism and partisanship and a Republican Party that has lost its heart, its soul and its way. Ronald Reagan would be embarrassed by Republicans today. William F. Buckley would be angry and ashamed. The party of Reaganite optimism is now the party that hopes America fails and blames Americans first.

Blames America first you say? I guess that's nothing like the never-ending apology tour The one embarked on where he wanted to apologies to the Japanese at Hiroshima in 2009? Or apologizing to the families of slain terrorists? And this is just a couple of examples of The One's knee-jerk reaction to blaming America first. Yet Budowsky somehow sees it as the GOP as the party of blaming America for our current woes.

What is really interesting to me is that he points to the latest jobs report as evidence of the GOP cheerleading for America to fail:

And now, the jobs report arrives. Today the ADP report was better than expected, disappointing Republicans who hope for joblessness and cheer-lead for America to fail. We shall see about the big jobs report tomorrow. This much is clear:

Never in the history of the republic has any great party been so passionately hopeful that America would fail as Republicans are today.

Um, just for the record Brent, adding 80,000 private sector jobs to the economy is at best considered anemic by any standard. But let's not take my word for it let's hear from Nancy Pelosi:

"Mr. President, where are the jobs?" Rep. Nancy Pelosi asked on CNN in October 2003. "The American people will not settle for—nor should the Republicans celebrate—a jobless recovery."

Well said Nancy, well s - Oh wait a minute that was way back in October of 2003 when 203,000 private sector jobs were added to the economy and unemployment was a staggering only 5.8%. Golly, what must Nancy think now of Obama's performance? anyone out there?

So according to Budowsky, 80,000 private sector jobs added is groovy while 203,000 added is bad. In what alternate universe does this make sense? The 80,000 jobs added last month is only about half of what we need in this country just to keep up with population growth. However, Budowsky would have you believe that because the number came in higher than expectations and the GOP rightly calls the number below what the American people need they are somehow rooting for America to fail.

That's like saying the Cubs had a great year because they only finished 25 games out when the experts thought it would be 50!

Hate to break it to you Brent but the GOP is not rooting for America to fail, they believe, as I do, that the Keynesian nonsense that this administration has shackled the US economy with does not work.

Budowsky continues to list the various ways in which the GOP is rooting for America to fail (emphasis mine):

Never in the history of the nation has any great party dreaded good news for America the way Republicans do today.

Again, in my book 80K jobs added is BAD news not good news.

Never in the history of America has any great party so callously and falsely blamed Americans who are jobless for being jobless, blamed Americans who are poor for being poor, blamed Americans who are hungry for being hungry or blamed Americans who are hurting for their hurt as Republicans do today.

The GOP is Blaming OBAMA and his economically inept policies - not the American people - for joblessness. Just look at this administration's stance on oil exploration. Millions of private sector jobs are on standby due to the One's war against traditional energy.

Never in the history of the Congress has any leader done what the Republican Senate leader did, boasting that his great dream for America was not putting Americans to work, but politically destroying the president.

Budowsky is referring to Mitch McConnell's comments in summer of 2011 where he said those very words. But in context he said those words in response to Obama's dream of huge deficits and government overreach. With that in perspective I got no problem with it.

While then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) passed job-creating legislation in the Democratic House, Senate Republicans abused the filibuster even more than the bigot senators of the old segregated South in their drive to make America fail. Senate Republicans destroy America's hope for jobs with the same ferocity of their leader's hyper-partisan ambition to destroy the president.

A, ahem, job creating you say? That was the boondoggle know as TARP that helped the jobless rate skyrocket to over 10%. And where Obama bloviated about shovel-ready jobs only to recant it 12 months later saying that the, um, shovel-ready jobs weren't as shovel-ready as he led us to believe. So keeping with Budowsky's theme, ANYTHING the government does, regardless of how ineffective and inefficient is good. And anyone who opposes this point of view is hoping for America to fail. Gothcha.

Budowsky apparently can't resist himself and gives a jibe at Romney for, of all things, being successful.

Never in the history of the nation has any great party been led by a man who praises his own wealth with such conceit and claims this as his qualification for the presidency. Even leading Republicans have called him a vulture.

All things being equal here (and they are not) I'd rather have a man in the Oval office who has actually signed the front of a paycheck not just the back.

Finally, Budowsky trots out the liberal mantra of GOP = the party of 'No'.

The party of Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan is now the party of "no" that hopes America fails and blames Americans first.

If that means saying no to the most expansive increase in the federal government, count me among the not just NO but he HELL NO folks.