Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Cantor says Truth About All Liberals Not Just Obama

     

Cantor: Obama Does Not Like People Whose Opinion Differs From Him



"We just come from different world views," House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) summed up.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Deficit Due To Over $pending By Big Government


Opinion Editorial


Teresa Tritch

 This is something new by the New York Times.Putting a member of its left wing socialist editorial board now posturing as an OPED columnist.She is a woman by the name of Teresa Tritch who claims to be a journalist.This is an oxymoron big time.
 Her piece this morning is entitled "How the Deficit Got This Big." Nothing new from the rest of the biased BS from her cohorts at the NYT.
 She begins her whining "With President Obama and Republican leaders calling for cutting the budget by trillions over the next 10 years, it is worth asking how we got here — from healthy surpluses at the end of the Clinton era, and the promise of future surpluses, to nine straight years of deficits, including the $1.3 trillion shortfall in 2010. The answer is largely the Bush-era tax cuts, war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, and recessions. "
  Wrong answer we got to our current situation because of excessive Government $pending.There was a so called surplus after the Clinton years because of the higher tax income tax rates going back to 1992-1993 and with the GOP takeover of both the US House and US Senate in the first midterm election under the Clinton years back in 1994 after that Welfare reform was passed by the Conservatives and Clinton was forced to sign it into law.It appears that people like Tritch don't get it it's blame Bush Syndrome all over again.
  This is the result of drinking the liberal kool-aid "the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect.Government has to spur demand and create jobs."Wrong wrong and wrong again.
  Here is where liberals like Tritch get it wrong once again "The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up."Nice try Tritch because when taxes are cut revenues go skyrocketing and the usual communist answer to an economic problem is taxes have to go up BS thinking.
 

 

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Economy Is Still In Disaster Mode


Opinion Editorial


   Still sticking to their left wing uninformed biases it seems at the New York Times.The same old same old as far as economic activity is concened.This mornings second lead OPED is "The Worst Time to Slow the Economy."
   This sick joke begins in the usual attack mode "It was not surprising to hear the Republican presidential candidates repeat their tiresome claim that excessive government spending and borrowing were behind Friday’s terrible unemployment report. It was depressing to hear President Obama sound as if he agreed with them."
   It is not surprising to hear the NYT repeat the BS and defend the indefensible about the reasons why we are in the quagmire that we are in economically speaking.Too much $pending is the reason where are the %&* shovel ready jobs Oh wait thats right President Barack HUSSEIN Obama laughed at that one yeah the jokes on us.This is the Hope and Change NOT!
   Here comes more attacks "The Labor Department report showed virtually no job growth in June, with the unemployment level edging up to 9.2 percent from 9.1 percent the month before. It seemed to confirm last month’s indication that the economy had stalled. After the report came out, the president went to the Rose Garden and said he hoped that a conclusion to the current debt-ceiling talks would give businesses “certainty” that the government had its debt and deficit under control, allowing them to start hiring again. Certainty? That sounds like Mitt Romney, or any of the other Republicans who have concocted a phony connection between hiring and government borrowing."
   Debt ceiling STOP SPENDING period!Especially on entitlement spending.Obama hoping I love it keep dreaming.How about the phony baloney that Government spending will rebuild the economy (e.g. the Porkulus a.k.a the aforementioned shovel ready jobs a.k.a Stimulus $pending.)
   It seems that the NYT is still suffering from what is known as BDS (Bush Derrangement Syndrome)
"There has never been any evidence that the federal debt is primarily responsible for the persistent joblessness that began with the 2008 recession. The numbers have remained high because of weak consumer demand and stagnant wage growth, along with an imbalance between jobs and job skills. Republicans have long tried to link unemployment and debt so that they can blame Mr. Obama for the poor economy, and build support for their ideological goal of cutting spending."
   If Obama is not to blame then who? I hear the crickets chirping.

Monday, July 4, 2011

Independence Day Happy Birthday U.S.A.!




  •                                               

    Sunday, July 3, 2011

    The Forgotten Man Painting



    Against the background of a darkening sky, all of the past Presidents of the United States gather before the White House, as if to commemorate some great event. In the left hand corner of the painting sits a man. That man, with his head bowed appears distraught and hopeless as he contemplates his future. Some of the past Presidents try to console him while looking in the direction of the modern Presidents as if to say, “What have you done?” Many of these modern Presidents, seemingly oblivious to anything other than themselves, appear to be congratulating each other on their great accomplishments. In front of the man, paper trash is blowing in the wind. Crumpled dollar bills, legislative documents, and, like a whisper—the U.S. Constitution beneath the foot of Barack Obama.

    Commentary

    This was sent to me from Richard Selfridge Chairman Of the Constitution Party Of Massachusetts.A Real true Red White and Blue Conservative American.

    Unsung Zeroes

    Opinion Editorial

    
      Even with terrorist master-mind and deceased al-Qeada leader Osama Bin Laden gone the far left STILL don't get it.Just by reading their warped sense some one like me cannot for the life of them understand why the left don't get it.The title of this mornings fourth lead OPED in the New York Times is "Unsung Heroes Who Opposed Torture."
      How soon that they forget that it was (what the left calls torture) that led the raid on his compound
        Bin Laden that is and his eventual much Heralded death by the Obama administraion.
      But here is the NYT's whinny rant "A small gesture can mean a lot. That is the simple but compelling idea animating a drive to gain official honors for the patriots, both civilian and in uniform, who stood up against the Bush administration’s immoral torture policies.The idea of bestowing honors on these heroes was raised in an April 28 Op-Ed article in The Times by Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union and Larry Siems of the PEN American Center. They said that while senior Bush administration officials approved egregious interrogation and detention practices, including torture, there were dissenters throughout the government.
       Those who stayed true to our values and stood up against cruelty are worthy of a wide range of   civilian and military commendations, up to and including the Presidential Medal of Freedom,” they wrote.
        Here we go again accessing the blame to the prior Bush administration which should commended not fawned upon.As far as the ACLU is concerned to the issue of torture they are irrelevant.The Pen American Center I went to their web site at pen.org this is their claim "PEN American Center is the U.S. branch of the world’s oldest international literary and human rights organization. International PEN was founded in 1921 in direct response to the ethnic and national divisions that contributed to the First World War. PEN American Center was founded in 1922 and is the largest of the 144 PEN centers in 101 countries that together compose International PEN." In other words protecting the rights of those on the far far left.Also with the NYT wanting those who opposed torture like say waterboarding should receieve honors and military commendations should be labeled as traitors and charged accordingly.
        NYT cannot let up on the Bush blame game along with their whinny ass rants "After the killing of Osama bin Laden, some — like John Yoo, the Bush Justice Department lawyer who twisted the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions to excuse the inexcusable — argued that waterboarding and other abuses were both proper and necessary.
    Ten leading civil liberties and human rights groups, including the A.C.L.U. and Human Rights First, have called on President Obama to honor all who bravely said no when the country veered off course. Recognizing them would not discharge Mr. Obama’s failed duty to find ways to further accountability. But it would be a start."
       Right now I am LMAO! twisting U.S.Constitution say what! Here maybe this can help all of you brain dead readers of the NYT and the rest of the so called intellectuals at these Human Rights groups those being waterboarded ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS so they have no rights under the U.S.Constitution.I can help you out even more just go to my Tea Parties web home page at itpma.org writen in blue lettering United States Constitution.
       As far the Geneva Conventions once again for you dumb #$^%^ liberals and alleged intellectuals who think that they are the smartest people in the room the Geneva Conventions don't apply those being tortured as members of AL-QAEDA they are not members of a foregin countries military.
      My suggestion to those intellectuals and the NYT/Democrat Socialist Communists out there try READING THE CONSTITUTION and the GENEVA CONVENTIONS before writing worthless OPED's about a certain subject which you have no idea about what you are writing about.

    Saturday, July 2, 2011

    Schribman On GOP

     SalemNews.com, Salem, MA                                         Post-gazette NOW


    David M. Shribman: Battle joined once more for Grand Old Party's soul

    LEBANON, N.H. — Up here in tranquil New Hampshire, where the hills glow peacefully in the summer sunshine, everyone's talking about the war for the soul of the Republican Party.
    Hold it, I am thinking. Haven't I witnessed several wars for the soul of the Republican Party?
    Six in my lifetime alone, now that I'm counting.
    There's no denying that there's a struggle within the Republican Party as it moves toward the first presidential primary here, tentatively (and, given the nature of this campaign, perhaps mischievously) scheduled for next Feb. 14. Already the party is divided every which way — between regulars and irregulars, economic conservatives and social conservatives, established politicians and newcomers, Westerners and Easterners, males and females.
    The Republicans haven't been at each other's throats this much since ... the last election.
    In our historical imagination, the Republicans are the sober, organized, unflappable ones — the quiet members of Rotary and Kiwanis who do their duty, tend to commerce, stiffen their upper lips at adversity, and take everything in stride. They're the party of social order and stability. The reality is quite different.
    Look back at the last century — go all the way back to the critical election of 1912, when giants strode the Earth and four of them, William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and Eugene V. Debs, ran for president — and you can count nine distinct battles for the soul of the Republican Party. The Democrats, the ones ridiculed as being the disorganized and emotional pugilists in American politics, have had only four such battles, fewer than half their rivals'.
    This time the battle for the soul of the Republican Party pits three former governors, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Jon Huntsman of Utah, against each other — and against a group of rebels that includes Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas, former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and businessman Herman Cain. But the Republicans had a similar struggle in 2008, when Sen. John McCain of Arizona, only four years after being considered a vice-presidential possibility on the Democratic ticket, had almost nothing in common with his Republican rivals, primarily Romney and former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas.
    Four elections earlier, commentator Patrick J. Buchanan took on President George H.W. Bush here in New Hampshire, painting Bush as effete and feckless and indicting him for being an apostate from the true Reagan faith. At the 1992 Republican National Convention, Buchanan spoke openly of a "culture war."
    It turns out that Ronald Reagan and Bush played central roles in two other GOP struggles — the one that spanned the 1976 and 1980 elections (main themes included the aggressiveness of modern conservatism and the validity of supply-side economics); and the one in 1988 (main themes were whether and how the Reagan revolution would be extended, and whether and how the demands of religious conservatives should be accommodated).
    Major struggles over the nature of conservatism also occurred in 1940 (over Wendell Willkie's views on internationalism) and in 1952 (when the Taft and Eisenhower wings clashed).
    Perhaps the most significant GOP struggle occurred in 1964, when the Eastern Republican establishment personified by Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller of New York was challenged, and defeated, by the new Western conservatism represented by Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona. Goldwater's landslide defeat at the hands of President Lyndon B. Johnson left the Republican Party in tatters — only to be revived four years later when former Vice President Richard M. Nixon beat Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey as the Democrats were undergoing one of their own internal struggles.
    The Democrats' internecine battles have been far less frequent, but just as explosive.
    The 1968 split, which continued through the 1972 election, was over Vietnam and cultural matters. It led to violent disruptions outside the Chicago convention hall; made the party vulnerable to the Republican taunt that the Democrats had become the party of amnesty, acid and abortion; and opened the door for many blue-collar voters, ardently Democratic since the New Deal, to abandon their party. That split followed the upheavals over race in 1948 (when Strom Thurmond and his allies bolted the party) and 1964 (when the national convention divided over which Mississippi delegation to seat).
    The party also split in 1928 over legalized drink and the degree to which the Democrats, who nominated Gov. Al Smith of New York for president that year, should identify themselves with Catholics and the immigrant families from Ireland and Eastern Europe that increasingly were becoming part of the political mainstream.
    There's no obvious reason why the party of stability, as Republicans sometimes regard themselves, has had more upheaval than the party of change, which is how Democrats sometimes think of themselves. Perhaps it is because these internal struggles often precede and follow the appearance of political titans, and the Republicans have had two in modern times (Dwight Eisenhower and Reagan) while the Democratic century was dominated by one (Franklin Roosevelt). The Goldwater-Rockefeller fissure was in large measure the result of the struggle to replace Eisenhower, just as the more recent fights in the Republican Party have been conducted in Reagan's long shadow.
    But the truth is that both major parties have had inner contradictions. The Democrats' were almost fatal: The fight between Southern conservatives and Northern liberals so divided the party that it took a generation for it to recover.
    The Republicans' main contradiction, between the traditional conservative yearning for stability and the modern, muscular conservatism forged in reaction to the Great Society, has not yet been resolved. That, more than Afghanistan policy and Romney's views on climate change, is what the 2012 primary and caucus season — and the latest of the many fights for the soul of the Republican Party — is really about.