Download Link 9AM-1-27
Download Link 10AM-1-27
Download Link 11AM-1-27
Someone managed to put together enough words to write a column for the Huffington Post accusing Lindsay (point: that is a girl name, so how can he be sexist?) Graham of making a sexist remark about Nancy Pelosi. When there is so much to say about her, going sexist would be unnecessary, but this astute reporter concluded the comment was sexist. See what you think (and I should add, this is second-hand info): “Did you see Nancy Pelosi on the floor? Complete disgust. If you can get through all the surgeries, there’s disgust.” It was clear, from the pictures of her during Netanyahu’s speech, that she was in a state of distress. Frankly, I was impressed given the Botox and facial reconstruction, she was able to achieve some of her expressions. That was one hell of a surgeon…but I digress… I actually found her comments about having been moved nearly to tears beyond absurd but the Left is lapping those up like a kitten drinks warm milk. Taken together with her actions during the speech of our only real “friend” in the middle East, she is a national embarrassment and for me, that’s the real story if you want to make any of this a story at all.
Lindsay (and that’s a girl name) Graham’s remarks pale in comparison to Nancy’s behavior toward Israel’s president. She should have simply opted out like so many of her Dumbocrat cohorts did instead of publicly embarrassing herself and this country by acting like a two-year old in a geezer’s body. It isn’t like this is the first thing she’s done that she should be ashamed of and it won’t be the last, and to try to deflect it by insinuating Graham is sexist is just silly. People (and by that I mean me) mock John “Stoneface” Kerry all the time…who knows what he even really looks like under his plastic surgery and Botox with his lizard-like tongue darting out as he speaks. Call me sexist, but if Pelosi has one more procedure she is not going to be able to close her eyes and as a warning to all the elders considering that degree of facial reconstruction, looking like you are perpetually startled because they’ve yanked your upper eyelids to your forehead does not make you look a day younger. It makes you look ridiculous. Her appearance is a distraction, but what is concerning about her is her behavior and hell-bent toward socialism philosophy. While I don’t think Graham’s remarks amount to sexism, I wish he had instead discussed the shameful way in which she comported herself.
Why is it I always feel a little less free when big government bureaucrats say they are going to protect me, or something I have, do or want, by regulating me or it? I caught that the drum beat for an open internet was a ruse perpetrated by an agency made up of government appointees with a left-leaning politically driven need to control others right out of the gate. That “net neutrality”, against the wishes of the people we elected to stop this kind of government over-reach, is now going to be a reality means you all better be opening your wallets because like taxes, the monetary effect of regulation trickles down to the consumer 100% of the time. Of course the Republicans are bloviating about how they will stop the FCC from regulating the internet like a utility, but let me refer you back to their cave on the Homeland Security and the immigrants funding bill-they are spineless and their words are just hot air. I dare you to find one utility that operates better, costs less, and functions more efficiently because of government regulation. I dare you.
Nothing is less necessary than this action by the FCC. It will not improve anything for the people who use the internet, nor will it improve things for anyone who wants to put something on the internet. It will ultimately make everything slower, harder, and cost more because that’s how government works. Mark my words-there will ultimately be an “internet tax” paid TO the government so they can screw with us some more. The only people for whom this is a win are the bureaucrats who get their jollies ordering around companies and the citizens who pay their fat salaries…and for the Obama administration who again won the “whose male appendage is bigger” contest by wielding undue, inappropriate influence over the FCC in the matter.
To all of the morons standing with their “save the open internet” signs and chanting ‘hey, hey, ho, ho”, I say congratulations and beware-and you really ought to be more careful about what you wish for because in the case of government regulation, you just lost a little bit more freedom AND money…for nothing.
Periodically I find myself absolutely incensed that a portion of the money I labor for is summarily taken by the government and redistributed by some faceless bureaucrat to people they believe are entitled to a share of my earnings. Furthermore, I take offense that while it’s my “patriotic duty” to tithe to the government for the benefit of others, there will be people who get back from the government MORE than they pay in taxes thanks to write-offs and programs that make this possible. I specifically say “people” instead of “Americans” because thanks to the spineless Republicans, Obama’s executive action on immigration will grant legal status to undocumented immigrants. What I love is the way the Left says “they will come out of the shadows and pay taxes.” Sure. And they will avail themselves of the many entitlements politicians use to solidify their voter base and those who actually pay taxes stand to reap far more in refunds than they paid into the system. If I’m an illegal, that sure sounds like a “win” to me.
According to the Heritage Foundation in 2013, 60% of all spending went to entitlements. That includes 22% each for social security and Medicare, Medicaid, and other health programs, and 16% to welfare and other entitlement programs. You hear the Left screaming about what is spent on defense, and represents only 18% of the money spent by the government-a duty they are charged with and somehow this administration seems convinced that their “make nice” foreign policy will end all conflicts and that amount can be lowered. We are literally shaking hands and then turning our backs on people who are laughing at our gullibility and scheming to get us. How stupid are we? And how stupid is it to squander our money-and remember, the government has no money that it doesn’t first take from us-on entitlements, legitimizing illegals so they can be attached to the teat, and continuing to pretend that the evil around us is in the corporations and businesses that serve us. I despise crony capitalism but I can’t blame companies for exploiting the same system that allows people to enter this country and gives them not just a pass, but my money, and rewards citizens-with my money-for doing nothing. We are, quite literally, being screwed from both sides. I am sick and tired of working multiple jobs-as does my wife-and the only entity reaping the benefits of our hard work is the government. And what do they do with the extra income they steal from us? Enable someone else to sit at home and do nothing.
The answer, of course, is stopping corporate and personal welfare, phasing out entitlements and allowing wage earners to keep the money we work so hard for. I’ve said this before and I will say it again-no one is a better arbiter of deciding where money should go than the person who earns it and if you aren’t willing to do so, than come to me and ask for my help. I should get to decide whether you need it or not and I am all for helping people in need. No government, no country, can survive when they take from one to give to another…government charity is just wrong. As you prepare your tax returns this year take a long, hard look at the amount that was taken from you and decide whether you think you might have been able to spend it better than the government did.
Just the word implies racist connotations and I cannot believe they didn’t change it to “radical ‘less politically incorrect benign name’” since they are founded on a phony “social justice” concept. The innane co-founder of this absurd Brownie troop spin-off said they aren’t telling the girls what to think. No, they’re just letting these young lasses paraphrase the false media/liberal narrative that the world is full of social injustice because “White policemen are killing black young folks such as women, men and children.” Another articulate lass offered, “Mike Brown. He was shot because he didn’t do nothing. Only the police office shot him because of his skin color.” Yes, he was just a sweet black boy out for a walk with a friend whose hands accidentally stole from a convenience store and then shoved the store clerk who requested payment. Maybe they ought to think about focusing troop activities on speaking grammatically correct English, or perhaps even seeking the truth?
The troop leaders were excited that the girls new head garb are a hybrid of the original brownie beanie with a Black Panther feel. After all, the Black Panthers are only concerned with making the streets safer. In what parallel universe would you want your daughter to emulate that? They also offered that the young ladies have earned their first badges. Would it surprise you if I told you it says “black lives matter?” Yes, they earned it for marching in the MLK day parade.
They are hoping this idea catches on. I don’t. Children get enough indoctrination in school, they certainly don’t need the kind of hate fostered from grade school on by an all girls’ group supporting the notion that black people somehow aren’t getting a fair shake.
I can only assume Obama is hoping that by pre-infuriating me with his release of snippets, he thinks I’ll have wound down by the time he actually delivers his plans for further socializing our fair Republic. So far, we know that part of the master plan involves providing additional benefits-free childcare and college-to some Americans by sticking it to other Americans, namely the “1%.” How he thinks the 1% will not pass these costs down to the little people through increases in the costs of the goods and services they provide to the masses is beyond me but he has yet to grasp that this is how WE, the little people, end up being the ones who ultimately pay.
But what tripped my trigger this morning, resulted in flames shooting from every orifice, is his plan to further stick it to employers by mandating they set up retirement accounts for their employees. I don’t know how many of you know my wife, but she is a genial girl for the most part…until you get her started on government intrusions into our lives and the raping of her paycheck in the name of fairness for all. To her surprise, she discovered when looking at a paycheck some time ago, she is mandated to contribute to a retirement account. She’s encouraged to contribute more, but she is mandated-by law because she works for a state entity-to have at minimum 1% of her pay seized and placed against her will into a retirement account…and when her yearly gross exceeds a certain amount, it increases to 2%. She finds that outrageous and I got quite the earful about this. I am not, presently, in this position myself but if the O has his way I will be. You will be. Hence my fire-breathing anger this morning. Here’s why…
If he gets his way your employer-who already has more paperwork than you can begin to imagine-will have yet another layer of government paperwork in proving they’ve set up a mandatory retirement account for you. It’s for your own good and provides cover for the government because they know they’ve squandered the money you already pay into Social Security for your retirement, so they now want to make you save more. Understand that my wife has nothing against saving for retirement and neither do I. We’d be making significantly greater headway toward saving for it, too, if the government didn’t take so much from us in taxes. You might be thinking there are enough loopholes and deductions for everyone-I assure you, we don’t get those. We have no children. We do not own a home. There is no special deduction for which we qualify. We just pay for everyone else. And now, he likes the idea that an employer can just take responsibility for forcing us to save on the job by making them set up an account for us? No, no, no. It should be my choice, and there is no reason why this choice should be dumped on my employer or anyone else’s.
Check out this article from USA TODAY:
It makes no sense to me why, when there is no evidence that employee “wellness programs” work, they are being foisted down the throats of American workers. My wife declined to participate in her workplace wellness program, refused to go to the website and fill out their questionnaire. No, they may not draw her blood or take her blood pressure or weigh her. No, she won’t answer questions about her personal health habits, lifestyle, and choices. Is it because she doesn’t want to be healthy? Nope. She is a cancer patient in remission so she’s all about her health. She gets check-ups every two months and tries to make decent choices that foster her continued good health. What she will not do it submit to the barrage of emails from HR health-Nazis to fill out her health profile. It is her business. And for those of you who think that she does this to exploit taking sick days, let me assure you that she doesn’t take sick days. Ever. She went through 6 weeks of chemotherapy and radiation and worked AROUND it. She missed one day and made it up by working another day that week, so don’t tell me these bs, liberal, feel-good programs do anything. It’s about choice. Mine, hers and yours. And she exercised it by saying NO to the employer health monitoring so popular these days.
Have you ever wondered what happens to all that information you enter into these seemingly benign computer programs that promise to give you some stupid health profile so you can change your dastardly ways and thus free yourself of ever getting sick again? She did. Someone at an employee health-Nazi forum she attended last fall, (before her rates were jacked), asked what her employer does with all of the information it collects on their eating habits, drinking habits, weight, blood pressure, moods-and the answer was, “Nothing as far as I know.” Nothing? She had no idea where the information went, whether it was going to some big employee database for analysis, or what the employer does with it. My concern? That this information is someday used against her. For now the program where she works is voluntary, but it is only a matter of time before it is mandatory. If that doesn’t concern you, it should. And if you are thinking, “I don’t smoke” or “I only have a beer a day” or “I’m only a few pounds overweight” so it doesn’t matter, you are wrong. That “it’s not my ox” mentality is foolish because it WILL be your ox eventually. And this deliberate shift by Obamacare to foment these stupid wellness programs is nothing more than a government attempt to extend the nanny state into the workplace.
The wellness questionnaires, point systems, and financial rewards for compliance are an invasion of your privacy, and one more reason why health insurance should NOT be in the purview of the employer or the state. Health insurance belongs in the private marketplace so that when a company engages in actions-like these stupid, intrusive wellness programs, you can take your business elsewhere. The government has no business mandating what an employer can offer, using the power of state to manipulate employers and employees with fines or financial rewards for instituting programs that have no evidence of success. Our health care insurance system is not better, costs are not coming down, and people are not healthier as a result of this crap. We merely sacrifice another little bit of our privacy.
This will get some media attention from those on the left, and I agree there’s something special about people on social security disability-those “most vulnerable”-who claim back injury and then belly up to the trough to suck the teat into perpetuity. I’d argue the program could be easily cut in half, probably reduced even more than that. And under no circumstances should money to cover these 11 million (and growing) “disabled” be taken from social security.
Here’s my issue with it-and maybe it’s just my wife and her aching back that is making me feel a bit sensitive, because in spite of her own physical issues, she finds a way to get work done. She knows what it feels like to work with a broken back and while she’s far from disabled, if she were unable to do what she’s presently doing, she’d find another way to do something else. Why? Because she’s laser-focused on figuring out what she CAN do, not bitching about what she can’t. People can get on disability for obesity, depression, generic “back pain”, along with a host of other things like profound intellectual or physical disability that actually inhibits gainful employ. I see SSI as a way out for the terminally lazy who, because we as a country allow it, choose not to seek a job they actually could do when physical or mental problems interfere with their ability to do their chosen profession. Where in the Constitution does it say that your ass is to be carried by the remainder of the populous if you are, say, unable to stand 8 hours a day because of back pain? And why are these people not encouraged to get jobs that would allow for more sitting? That’s what my wife did. She could easily say to herself, “my back hurts too much for me to work.” She could trot to orthopedists, wearing them down to the point that she’s either a narc junkie or convincing them to call her disabled to the point that they agree to sign off on the paperwork. A lot of people do that. She chose to focus on other things, so I think a lot of this is mindset, victimization facilitated by the government. Understand that it’s a lot of work to get disability, and also that there are people who are truly disabled who can use the help (though I also believe it should be provided through private means versus taxpayer-funded). What I’m talking about are the millions of people who could easily do SOME job and choose to suck the teat instead.
I’ve had enough, and I say trim the disability rolls, then cut benefits if you have to. But don’t take money promised to generations of seniors. And for God’s sake, get rid of social security so that the coming generations escape this government sanctioned Ponzi scheme.
These days even the minimally aware among us are buying the media talking points and are under the impression that police are gunning for those they have sworn to serve and protect. This is especially true for black citizens who, if you are to believe the media, leave the house every day with targets on their backs. I’m not a fan of some police programs-DUI checkpoints and red-light cameras to name two-and while I realize there are a few rogue officers, overall I am an unashamed, vocal supporter of the police. I have friends and family in law enforcement and from the time I was a small boy, was raised to respect anyone wearing a badge. I realize I speak from a white perspective-and don’t ask me to apologize for the phony concept of “white privilege”-but the following suggestions are prudent for all races, creeds, national origins, gender identification, thugness, whatever. Consider this a “primer” for surviving a police encounter. It will be useful for anyone who wasn’t raised by people like my parents who, if I’d been caught doing something illegal, would have rained a hell down upon my person far greater than anything the police officer could have meted out.
Rule number 1: Do what the police officer tells you. If he says, “stop!”, stop. If she says, “take your hands out of your pockets,” take your hands out of your pockets. If they say, “put your hands behind your back now,” do so. If you have something in your hands, tell the officer “I am holding my phone” so they know it is not a gun. You can politely ask why you are being pulled over or arrested (if by some chance you aren’t aware of what you did that caught the officer’s attention), but you do not have to agree with it in order to comply with the officer’s request. Resist the impulse to talk, because you’ll want to, and for God’s sake, don’t start badmouthing the officer.
Rule number 2: Do not resist. You know that old saying, “you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”? It applies here. This is the time to be polite, not the time to go for his or her service weapon, punch him in the face, run toward or away from him, or initiate any other provocative action that is likely to get you tazed or shot even if you feel like this encounter represents a clear case of police harassment. Be compliant and docile, busy yourself by keeping your mouth shut while you are not resisting, and settle yourself in the back of the police car. You can sort things out at the station and/or in court.
Rule number 3: Shut up. I have already hinted at the importance of not talking in rules 1 and 2, but allowing a stream of profanity that is directed at the police to flow and/or offering some lame explanation without a lawyer present is just foolish. Baiting and berating the police will not help your case, it just elevates the situation, and you need an attorney to keep you from saying things that will not be helpful to you in court. If you feel you must speak, ask for a lawyer. For those of you who cannot suppress the desire to vocalize, you might recite the Declaration of Independence or sing the Star Spangled Banner.
There are only 3 rules, and they probably sound too simple to be effective, but the cops I know will not shoot you if you follow them to the letter. When you look at the cases of police shootings they typically involve citizens not exercising the rules above. Even if I don’t agree with a law or a police stop, I know I must abide by it and then argue my case in court. This is true even when I know I have done nothing wrong; in the street the police rule because they have the badges and guns and are charged with keeping order. Under no circumstances is it ever advisable or appropriate to take a stand anywhere but a court of law. It goes without saying that the best way to avoid getting shot by a police officer is to not break the law, but that’s for another blog…
I won’t even presume what goes through a rape victim’s mind when she’s forced-against her will-to perform any sex act, but the idea that some jackass reporter would question why she didn’t bite her attacker’s penis is beyond the pale. Yes, one Don Lemon, a talking head on CNN had the utter lack of class, decency, and taste to ask that of the woman accusing Bill Cosby of rape.
Try, if you can, to imagine this question being asked by a FOX News reporter and the blow-back that might ensue. I was actually surprised the HuffPo decided to call CNN out on this, as mild as it is, and I am trying to imagine how this moron is even employed this morning after having asked this question of a rape victim. I would not be surprised, had this been asked by a FOX News employee-on camera-that Obama wouldn’t have taken to prompter demanding the FCC find a reason to take the entire network off the air. When you consider the public firestorm after ill-advised but less cruel comments made by a conservative radio host and politician you’d think they’d be all over this given how offensive it was. Do you hear the crickets? Yes? Wonder if it has to do with this occurring on a liberal network?
As I wait and troll the web and watch the news for any word about Jonathan Gruber, a man who visited the White House on multiple occasions to help get Obamacare passed, who mocked our citizenry for being stupid-repeatedly-and who freely admitted to gaming the system, I try to remember that the media world slants one way. Left. They can say and do anything and get a free pass. It’s up to the purveyors of news sources to demand better, to change the channel when what’s really stupid opens its mouth and asked a question like this one.
Media airwaves are crackling and pundit mouths are flapping with the news that O is planning executive action to legalize illegals. This really isn’t new news; he’s been threatening it practically since he foisted Obamacare onto an unwilling nation of stupid people. Doing it now will serve as a reminder to Republicans and the nation that he drives the train as the nation’s chief executive and will do what he wants, when he wants, for whom he wants.
The big fear is that once this crop of illegals suddenly gain status, a new crop will start heading over the border. This is a legitimate concern because how do we effectively seal off our borders to prevent people from sneaking in when there are miles and miles and miles of rugged territory. We cannot possibly monitor every single inch of it and there are those who don’t particularly care if they are caught because it takes forever, if ever, to send them back. Let’s look instead at what makes this country attractive and what pisses people off about illegal immigrants. I’m not saying don’t protect the border, but if you drill down to the pathologies involved with immigration, you get a different sense of things. One of the biggest complaints of the average citizen is that these people are stealing jobs. No, they are not. They are taking jobs that American-born teat-suckers won’t take and don’t have to take because they aren’t forced to work for their keep. Illegals aren’t subject to minimum wage, they are subject to market forces. Legalizing illegals just means they now can either take a minimum wage job, or belly up to the government trough like American citizens can while their comrades back home trot across the border to work for-you guessed it-the same jobs the illegals had before Obama made them legal. This leads to the second complaint, that illegals will immediately start to avail themselves of the fruits of other Americans’ labor via welfare programs once they are legal. This is a legitimate beef, but who can blame them? Every social service government website has directions in Spanish to attach to the teat so we make it easy for them. No wonder they think the streets are paved with gold. I believe it is a misnomer, however, to assume they come here to be cared for in the bosom of the government. The vast majority of immigrants from down south-the ones most people think about when they see red on this issue-are the low skill workers who will take what an employer will pay in exchange for a day’s work. They come here wanting an opportunity; our government programs lure them into laziness like it’s the American way or something.
I know there are people who do not agree with me on this but I don’t have a problem with status change from illegal to legal. Verify they are not carrying illness, are not criminals, and let them work. Note I did NOT say attach them to the teat, I said LET THEM WORK. Advise them that they are welcome to stay provided they have gainful employ, and they will not be eligible for any of the freebies other Americans shouldn’t be getting. Give them a path to citizenship that includes staying out of trouble with the law, learning English, and working. Otherwise, show them the door. If they know that there is no “fall-back”, that they will not be eligible for government programs (and you already know I would get rid of every single program that takes the fruits of one man’s labor to redistribute to someone who didn’t work for it), any incentive that might provide is automatically eliminated. It is possible that we will lose quite a few illegals by telling them they may not suck the teat, but I’m betting there will be more who are willing to pay their way in exchange for the freedom and opportunity this country provides. Obama could stifle critics in a heartbeat by announcing a path to citizenship and legal worker status, with no eligibility for government programs through at minimum 2 generations, and a program by which the welcome mat is rolled out for legal immigrants who are disease-free and not criminals.