Monday, February 29, 2016
Last night in Chris Rock’s Oscar introduction speech, he of course attacked the idea of blacks not getting their Affirmative Action share of Oscar awards, while ignoring the fact that no white actors have received any BET awards, yet he called the Oscar awards the “White People’s Choice Awards” even though his personal pay for his appearance last night could pay off the debts of thousands of the police officers across the nation who he defamed with his remarks about the blacks who COPS shot while they were going to the movies. Chis Rock is reported to be worth over 70 million dollars, yet takes advantage of the admitted racism of Hollywood to abuse the police officers who defend him and his property. And did anyone see Leonardo DiCaprio reject his selection of Best Actor? If Mr. DiCaprio was really interested in an equal distribution of black faces among the winners, he would have turned down even his Oscar nomination, let alone the award, and insisted it be given to a black actor (or actress, right? Is Hollywood also being sexist by giving one of its most coveted awards to a man?).
But of course, any Affirmative Action must begin with someone else’s award, not DiCaprio’s. It’s not diversity that is the problem in Hollywood, there are black and Hispanic faces in excess of their representation in the general public. The supposed subject here is specific awards, supposedly given based on merit, that the liberals in Hollywood are so defensive about. Will this require a new Affirmative Action model to be established by the government to oversee an equitable distribution of the awards until a “fair” distribution has been made? I believe not. If the Obama administration was on board for such enforced equality the idiot Joe Biden would have not appeared at last night’s ceremony; he would have strutted to a microphone and righteously and pompously condemned the entire evening’s events. But Joe was there and as a result let the world know that (alleged) racial and sex discrimination are OK with the Oval Office as long as their pals and supporters in Hollywood are the culprits.
Is the supposed racism of our Hollywood stars expanding to the broader United States? I ask this because it’s been reported that the viewing audience last night established an eight-year low. Is America rejecting the selfishness and excesses of Hollywood in general, or did they simply not want to hear what Mr. Rock had to say on the subject? Chris rock has vast wealth and lives in luxury unimaginable to most white and black Americans, yet Hollywood pretends that people with his skin color are being horribly mistreated because they don’t receive Oscars regularly.
I’ll give Mr. Rock one compliment though: he stated in his monologue that in the 50s and 60s blacks had serious things to worry about and try to overcome, so at that time they didn’t have time to protest the Oscar nominations. This realization of the real world where most people live is appreciated and too often forgotten as the exclusive, rich liberals of the east and west coasts try to excuse their excessive wealth by pretending to find some flaw in America that they must tell the world about.
Posted by Dave King at 11:54 AM
I voted for Mitt Romney for president in the last election, but I won’t do it again. I’m absolutely shocked at the small, mean statements about Trump’s taxes that Mitt uttered last week, especially in light of the filthy remarks Harry Reid made about Mitt’s own taxes in the previous presidential election. We all know that Obama has had the IRS thoroughly scan Trump’s tax returns, just as we know that Obama had the IRS exhaustively scan Mitt’s returns in 2012, in both cases looking for any possible dirt they could use to damage the campaign of a Republican. So why would Romney stoop to the level of Harry Reid and attack Trump?
I’m surprised that Mitt would take such a cheap shot, and I wonder if he is thinking of taking an “establishment” run at president again, and made his remarks in preparation for entering the race once again, this time against the presumed Republican candidate, Trump. I just wish Republican candidates would be as aggressive and mean toward their Democrat opponents as they are toward people with whom they basically agree.
The kind of remark Mitt made about a fellow Republican is manna from heaven for Democrats, and in the next general election we can expect to see Mitt’s words used against whomever is the Republican candidate for president (Trump, Rubio, Cruz or otherwise) by Hillary as she uses Mitt’s words against whichever Republican she runs against. And I’d be willing to bet that Mitt’s statements have refreshed the memories of Hillary’s advisors and that they are now reviewing Reid’s charges against Mitt and getting their data together to use Mitt’s attacks against even himself.
Posted by Dave King at 7:03 AM
Friday, February 26, 2016
Today Al Sharpton provided the only reason any sensible person needs to vote for Donald Trump for president: he said he will leave the country if Trump is elected. He left open whether or not he will pay his back taxes before leaving, but I think forgiving and erasing his delinquent tax burden is a good trade for getting rid of the scoundrel.
Now if we can only get Barbra Streisand and Alex Baldwin to accompany Al we can all sit back and enjoy life for a change without all of the liberal bickering and name calling and the casting of shame on America that these fools are famous for.
I’ve lately become a little soft on The Donald as I believe he is drifting away from me and my preference for a presidential candidate, just like the Democrat party drifted away from Ronald Reagan years ago when they became wobbly and vague on exactly what they believed and what they would do with political office. But getting rid of Mr. Sharpton would be worth drowning my doubt and pressing ahead with Trump for president.
But I’ll bet Al doesn’t leave even if Trump is elected, so I’ll keep my powder dry for now and see what happens.
Posted by Dave King at 4:12 PM
Thursday, February 25, 2016
As far back as I can recall, or as far back as I’ve been able to determine from reading, parents (American parents, Italian parents, Chinese parents, all parents) lived simple lives and raised families while having limited financial resources, little pleasure of their own and very little time to themselves, but they were able to raise children while sacrificing their own good times so the children could live better lives than the parents had.
But now the tide is changing and the youth today are being selfish to an alarming degree, which bodes ill for the future as they become parents. Have today’s youth had parents who taught them to be self-reliant and thrifty? The last two or three generations of Americans have known so much material wealth, fun, travel and have been inundated with so much “stuff”, that these young people just coming of age and voting for the first time have become completely enamored with the “me generation” and its excesses. They are now going wild for Socialist Bernie Sanders and his promise to load up the federal gravy train and to keep giving them more free “stuff”, with emphasis on “free” college. Young people are so grasping for any good time they can find, it makes one fearful for how they’ll take care of their children later in life, and it’s doubtful they will be willing to sacrifice their partying in favor of establishing a firm and stable family-setting for their children.
Whatever happened to working for a few years, saving your money and then buying your stuff from your own earnings and not expect the taxpayer to give it to you? Because of seven years of an Obama non-economy, young people have gotten used to not having meaningful work available to them, and have remained largely unemployed while still being able to get the latest iPhone and otherwise living rather well in spite of being unemployed, even if it meant living with their parents. They don’t want to consider the reality of having to live with less material wealth.
Now they find Bernie promising them free college which they believe will lead directly to a large salary upon being given a diploma, and they are drooling over the free stuff that awaits them if Bernie is elected president; it’s the logical end-product of all they’ve experienced so far. They seem to not realize that Bernie’s promise of free college now, means higher taxes later in order to pay for the next wave of free-loaders attending college. They also don’t realize that “free” college means everyone will sign up for college, which likely means that free college will soon be nationalized as the demand for it increases and as the cost of adding classrooms to meet the demand escalates. Before long the Bernie-schools will be pumping out thousands of fresh graduates creating more competition for the limited number of good jobs available. The net outcome is a loss to the voter/student who believes he/she can get something for “free”. These free colleges will cause so many young people to want attend college that it’s hard to see where the plumbers, auto mechanics and carpenters we need to live comfortably will come from.
Posted by Dave King at 9:06 AM
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Setting aside any consideration about the physical danger that relocating terrorist fighters from the prison in Guantanamo to an American state would present to the citizens of that state, the idiotic illogic of Obama on this entire matter is astounding.
What our president repeatedly and painfully gives as a reason to shut down Guantanamo and move the detainees to a prison in Colorado or Kansas is that having the prisoners at the Cuba location makes radical Islamists angry and gains converts to groups such as ISIS and the terrorist, radical cause. Unsaid by our thoughtless president but implicit in his message, is that only the Gitmo location makes terrorists mad and they will be happy with our imprisoning the current cache of bad guys currently at Gitmo if they are moved to a maximum security prison on American soil.
Does this idiocy, from one who is himself a radical, leftist, America-hating man who happens to be our president, make any sense at all? Is he suggesting that relocating detainees from a warm environment (Cuba) to a colder environment (Colorado or Kansas) would settle the nerves of radical Islamists around the world? Or is the subject really about Obama keeping a campaign promise (made seven years ago, so a little over due at this point) to close Guantanamo? More likely Obama is trying to clear the prison so he can give Gitmo to the Castro brothers as partial repayment and reparation for all of the pain and suffering America has caused the great nation of Cuba all these years.
How many times have we seen our brave president take credit for the killing of Osama Bin Laden? Obama struts and parades this military action as though he personally tracked Bin Laden to his lair and personally pulled the trigger on the rifle that ended his life. But our foolish president cannot imagine why any radical Islamist would be angered by this repeated claim of glory by the great commander-in-chief Obama. Knowing that an American president had given the go-ahead to the killing of the terrorist leader who was the hero of the militant Islamic\terrorist world would not cause radical Syrians or Iraqis to join the effort to bomb American cities and kill Americans? No, the reason the Islamic world hates America is only because we hold their soldiers in Guantanamo. Total idiocy and typical liberal/progressive, blame-America-first thinking.
Obama makes totally illogical points and his liberal pals just nod their heads in lock-step agreement, and then they caucus to devise some new scheme to take liberty, freedom and prosperity away from the American citizens.
How can this great nation have such total fools ruling and ruining it?
Posted by Dave King at 7:10 AM
Monday, February 22, 2016
On February 21st, Danielle Allen wrote an opinion article for the Washington Post titled “The moment of truth: We must stop Trump”. In the article she compared Donald Trump with at least the idea of an Adolf Hitler. The most important part of her rambling, sloppy article resides in the second to last paragraph where she lets us know that she is completely off base with her speculation about Trump while she apparently likes the Hitler-like actions of Obama.
In the paragraph she states that “Donald Trump has no respect for…constitutional democracy, nor for the requirements of decency necessary to sustain democratic citizenship”. So, with this quick and late entry in her article, Ms. Allen shows how twisted her thinking is in wondering how a Hitler can come along in a modern state: she has ignored the denial of a “constitutional democracy” under the Barack Obama administration, considering that he illegally and unconstitutionally opened the borders of America to the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. And Obama spit on the idea of a “constitutional democracy” when he denied Americans the right to select and pay for their own healthcare. Ms. Allen also ignores Obama’s hostility toward a “requirement of decency”, when Obama’s administration forced Catholic Nuns to provide and/or pay for abortions and birth control in their religious establishments, these being two of the most important and forbidden tenets of their religion. Mr. Obama is definitely not a “decent” man.
Ms. Allen ignores her own guy, Obama, and his unconstitutional and unlawful behavior in her search for the rise of a new Hitler. Obama acts unilaterally any time he wants something done and the Republicans oppose him on constitutional or legal grounds. Mr. Obama doesn’t have the “requirement of decency” Ms. Allen is looking for, because he doesn’t recognize the constitutional requirement of a balance of powers nor of a separation of powers among the three branches of government in the United States. He just issues executive orders and expects obedience.
The astounding thing is that Ms. Allen is merely speculating about how Trump will act in office, but Obama has already proven himself unfit to serve considering the unconstitutional things he’s done, utilizing methods that Hitler used to gain the power that Ms. Allen, correctly, so deplores. But I guess Ms. Allen likes legally harassing and threatening old, peaceful Nuns and making them do the most abhorrent things they can imagine, because she can find no criticism for Obama when he actually commits these acts. But for Donald Trump she has only to imagine a future transgression and then try to hang the tag of Hitler on him.
I would like to say to anyone who thinks that Obama’s lack of real-world experience along with his short service in the U.S. Senate before becoming president is why he is such a bad president and so divisive in office, and I would advise them against using this thinking to suggest that Republicans Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio be blocked from consideration for the presidency due to their own short tenures in the Senate. It wasn’t Obama’s lack of Senate seniority that makes him the worst president in American history; it’s his leftist/progressive ideology that causes him to do unconstitutional, unheard-of things as part of achieving his “fundamental transformation of America” that makes him so bad.
It’s Obama who must be stopped before he does any more harm to this great nation, not Donald Trump.
Posted by Dave King at 4:38 PM
Thursday, February 18, 2016
The Robin Hood reference is for Bernie’s and Hillary’s promise to provide free education to all students forever. But they have the beneficiaries of this big-government largess reversed. They want to be seen as promising the middle class the benefit of a free education, when in reality a large section of the middle class don’t attend college (is college needed to drive a cab, be a lineman for AT&T, become a plumber or work on the Ford assembly line?), but the middle class taxpayer will absolutely pay the majority of the cost of providing free college. So we have a case of the middle class paying for the education of the upper class. Robin Hood and his serf friends are being forced to pay for the education of the Sheriff of Nottingham and the King of England. However, the fact that so many young people are buying into this idiotic scheme proves that education would serve them well for being so dumb, but I know that the government education that would be offered at such government colleges would still leave graduates as dumb as when they went in.
Also, considering the free college idea from the leftist/progressive perspective of global warming/climate change, do we really want the government to support college education for all Americans, when we know that a college education will often improve the salary that graduates make, and they spend this extra money on airline travel, big cars, big houses and otherwise assume a large carbon footprint while expending their excess cash. So from the left’s position on the lie of climate change/global warming, they should oppose any higher education. But trying to make sense of what the leftists want to do and what they support will make you crazy if you attempt to analyze it.
Concentrating on Hillary for a moment, her recent barking-like-a-dog episode reminds one of Howard Dean and his primal scream a few years back. And how about Michael Dukakis wearing the Beetle Bailey helmet? What’s up with Democrat campaigning practices?
One of Hillary’s most-repeated phrases in her presidential campaign is “.. I will work for you”. I cringe every time I hear this idiotic phrase because it’s the expression of a dictator. The words literally mean that she will give all the free stuff that government has to offer to her voters and thereby make them happy. The phrase must be taken to mean that she knows the individual wants and needs of all of her voters and, like Santa Claus, will give them exactly what they want and need most. The phrase further suggests that she will treat everyone the same, with no allowance for individual tastes and preferences, and will place everyone’s wants in a one-size-fits-all cube, at the expense of the evil rich. Of course Hillary will not work for either you or me. She works for herself and she lies to get votes so she can use the influence of the office of president to dish out favors to big corporations and Saudi oil sheiks in response for million dollar donations made to her Clinton foundation.
Conservatives also make promises, but their promises don’t promise stuff, they promise liberty and freedom. A true conservative will promise his/her best to get government, represented by the IRS, the EPA, the FED, HUD and numerous other government agencies, off their backs and out of their lives so they can work and save and invest on their own and achieve the life each individual wants and deserves for himself/herself and their family. A government limited by our constitution will exercise only the limited and defined power it’s allowed to have, and all other powers will reside in the individual, thus making him/her free and proud of their achievements.
Posted by Dave King at 8:15 AM
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Bernie’s Free College Scheme: Just Another Way To Screw The Middle Class By Promising Something That Is Not Really Needed
Bernie Sanders should be ashamed of himself for his elitist, lying scheme to give young people in America “Free College”. The idea that young people believe this ridiculous idea proves that our children need a higher value of education that will teach them how to think and reason when a con game is being presented to them, because anyone with average sense knows that college cannot possibly be “free”: it must cost someone, something. Just wait until the recipients of Bernie’s “free college” become graduates, get a job and then have to pay for the “free” educations of every new college student for decades to come and they’ll realized their error. A college loan will eventually be paid off, but a government obligation to provide a “free” education to all future high school graduates will never end.
Here are some of the ways “free college” will hurt middle class, working Americans, and favor the upper class, where Bernie lives and thinks:
For any family that has just put a child through college and either paid the bill outright or taken out a college loan to pay for it, the taxes that Bernie will have to levy against this family and all other American families will be sheer totalitarian punishment meted out against them: they have paid for their child’s education, now they have to pay for their neighbor’s child’s education, and all other students that attend college thereafter. Sounds rather punitive to me.
The problem is not only that the taxpayer will, via the new higher taxes this free stuff will require, never be able to spend their own money the way they want it spent (perhaps on a long anticipated vacation, investing for their eventual retirement, or maybe on an education for their own children at a private university of their choosing), but if the middle class taxpayer never attended college, and if the children of the taxpayer don’t attend college, then we have a situation where the elites attending college are taking from the high school-educated middle class to support the college-educated upper class, and the middle class taxpayer will never get the benefit returned to him/her for the money he/she paid for various other people’s children’s educations. It’s sort of a Robin Hood story in reverse: take from the poor and give to the rich. Typical liberal/progressive/Democrat, unintended consequences stuff. And still, after all is said and done and the newly graduated college students are unable to find jobs equal to their “free” education, and middle class families remain even worse off than they are today because of the punitive taxes the government is demanding they pay for all the free college Bernie is promising, the left will once again blame the “rich” for all of the nation’s ills, even though the people who have received all of the free largess the government has to offer will by that time be the “rich” the Democrats/socialists are blaming. This proves the old quote that the truth is stranger than fiction, because no one with common sense could believe that this Ponzi scheme we call a government could make all of this idiotic stuff up.
The sad truth that elites like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton will never be able to understand is that not everyone is able to go to college, nor does everyone want to go to college. Most people in their fifties and older remember a time in America when one could make a good living and easily support a family, take nice vacations, eat out often and save for retirement, without ever attending college. But under the current administration, the administration that has killed millions of jobs and virtually killed full-time employment altogether following Obama’s Affordable Care Act takeover and his EPA’s big-government regulations, going to college to become a professional and make big a big salary is essential to living well and supporting a family comfortably in current-day America. And here’s the rub: the need to make a big executive salary, which most people are not able to do and have never been able to do (and in the past they didn’t need to), is why so many people are having to resort to welfare to support families, and it’s why the average family today makes the same or less annual salary than the same family made ten years ago.
Aside from the harm Obama has done to the average family’s ability to keep up with their bills (and this new college tax will only add pain to that family’s budget), the reality is that Bernie’s free college scheme will provide a benefit to our increasingly socialist country that no one actually needs, but it will be at the public’s expense.
So here we go again. An upper class Senator seeking the presidency promises something that no one needs and bills the middle class for its cost. Typical slime activity for liberal/progressive/Democrats, like Bernie and Hillary. Obama was so successful at selling this kind of bunk that these amateurs think they can do it too. But if we want our nation to once again be prosperous and free, we’d better pray that the voters in America are smart enough to reject this new power grab.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
The two-faced liberal filth running our nation are without shame. When it was a Republican president nearing the end of his term they insisted that he not be allowed to fill an open seat on the Supreme Court, but when it’s Obama nearing his final days as president, they say it’s not only normal and proper to fill an open seat this late in his administration, they insist that it’s his constitutional duty and an obligation for him to make a nomination, and the Republicans must approve his choice.
And speaking of the constitution, it was laughable to see Senator Patrick Leahy not only quote the constitution, but hold up a copy of it and lecture Republicans that they must follow the dictates of the document he was holding and approve Obama’s next nominee. I don’t know where Leahy found the copy of the constitution he was holding, (he has not made reference to it nor sought guidance from it in at least the last 25 years) but it’s a certainty that he has no idea what’s in it.
Every American must call or email their Senators and demand that they neither vote on nor approve any Supreme Court nomination made by the leftist radical Obama. If he gets one more justice placed on the Court it will be the final nail in the American coffin, and it will be the crowning glory in Obama’s quest to “fundamentally transform America”.
Posted by Dave King at 7:41 AM
Monday, February 15, 2016
Throughout the first 200-plus years of America the government was an impartial part of everyone’s life: it allowed people to succeed or fail by their own talents and in keeping with the “content of their character” as Martin Luther King expressed it. And under this philosophy our nation became the wealthiest, happiest and most liberated nation the world has ever seen. Then in the 1960s the federal government realized that the civil rights of a portion of our population was being denied and passed legislation that finally ended the discrimination.
Politicians liked the way the passing of this legislation made them feel and they enjoyed the pleasant feedback they received for passing the legislation that corrected past injustices, and then began a series of attempts by politicians to discover new “needs” of the people (like the “need” for an Obamaphone and the “need” for cable TV) and they attempted to uncover some mistreatment being meted out to sections of the population which the politician could then add to the list of goodies he/she could be praised for providing. This also extended to the area of making certain that no one failed any more, that no one felt oppressed and that no one was “offended” by the words of their fellow citizens, even when these words were only passively displayed (as in praying silently or singing America’s national anthem).
An example of a current “need” recently discovered by liberal/progressive/Democrat Bernie Sanders is the “need” for every American to attend college for free. Never mind that not all Americans want to or need to attend college and that traditionally college only served those who wanted to join highly trained professions in which the eventual high salary could justify the high cost of getting the education. And also never mind that there are not enough colleges and class rooms to accommodate all young people who are being promised the free education. Too many young people would take advantage of, and possibly abuse, this offer of a newly identified “need” and spend four years wasting their time at the taxpayers’ expense taking junk classes for which there is no private job available, following graduation. And how likely is it that a nineteen year-old is going to take an education seriously when it costs him/her nothing? In addition, it’s likely that students taking these free courses will be given a diploma without having had to study and make decent grades (Bernie promises a free education but says nothing about making the attendee work to earn the diploma).
An enormous problem this new “need” generates, is that the cost will without doubt come to rest heavily on the middle class and will be drawn from them in the form of new taxes. The injustice is that the middle class attend college at a lower rate than the upper classes and they need a college education much less for the professional work they do (beauticians, electricians, plumbers, truck drivers, etc.). So the middle class will be subsidizing the education of the higher classes. And the taxes that will be demanded of the middle classes will never end because the young people in “need” of education will never end.
All of the suffering of the middle class to pay this new, enormous, never-ending tax will do no good considering the miserable state of our economy under the Obama administration, and all of the suffering is only intended to make liberal/progressive/Democrat politicians look good and get the vote of the recipients of the free stuff. The ability of government to find new things that people “need” and that only government can provide for them is without end, and is only just beginning.
Posted by Dave King at 12:16 PM
Sunday, February 14, 2016
The United Nations delegates, likened to the Star Wars bar scene, like Obama and flock to see him when he gives a speech, because he shares their desire to see America and Israel destroyed and humiliated.
The Muslim Brotherhood, who tried to subvert our ally, Egypt, with a takeover of Egypt’s government by Sharia-following terrorists, likes Obama. Obama and Hillary claimed the Muslim Brotherhood were “moderates” who were taking the lead in the Middle East on a revolutionary “Arab Spring” of enlightenment and reform. So how is that Arab Spring “reform” going for us now, Obama? And you, too, Hillary.
Big pharma appear to like Obama, because he needs to get control of their business in order to nationalize healthcare and the entire medical profession. Meanwhile, as Obama destroys healthcare on his way to nationalizing it, the pharma CEOs think they can delay the inevitable indefinitely by being pals with him. The pharma CEOs need to visit with the Obamacare insurance companies’ CEOs about the advisability of scheming against the American people and our economic structure in order to make a short-term profit by teaming up with big government. In the long term it doesn’t work to a company’s benefit and profitability.
Big insurance companies used to like Obama a lot because he assured them that they would rid themselves of their competition by joining the ACA-dictated state exchanges and the risk corridors that the non-exchange insurance companies could not participate in. However, some of the ACA insurance companies are now rethinking their initial admiration of Obama and his government-dictated healthcare plan, as the reality of pretending to be a part of a capitalist nation is undermined by the big-government healthcare nationalization Obama has planned for them. They are now losing money under Obamacare and want a tax-payer bailout from congress to cover their losses, or they want out of the exchanges altogether.
Large corporations such as General Electric like Obama because as he destroys some smaller companies, who lack the financial backing to implement his draconian new regulations, he leaves the larger companies with less competition. Obama even allowed the G.E. Chairman of the Board, Jeffrey Immelt, to serve as his hand-picked Jobs Czar where his assignment from the beginning was to see how employment could be increased during Obama’s job-destroying administration. At the same time Immelt was charged with increasing employment in America, he was deviously devising ways to close GE lightbulb plants and ship the work and jobs to Mexico, thereby using his government position under Obama to decrease employment and assure cheaper labor costs for his company at the expense of G.E.’s competitors and customers and at the cost of increasing unemployment for American citizens.
General Motors also likes Obama because the new owners, the automotive unions, were given ownership, illegally, by Obama via a directed bankruptcy scheme cooked up by the White House.
Illegal aliens obviously like Obama because they are allowed to enter the country with no papers, no employment and with no health or security checks and immediately go on welfare, as long as they know they are beholden to Obama and the Democrats with any future votes.
Convicted Prisoners assuredly like Obama because he periodically releases packs of them without telling local authorities this move is coming, and without any consideration as to the severity of the crimes that put them in prison.
Communists such as Van Jones very much like Obama because he gives them the cover of respectability and allows them to do their best to destroy what they can of our government and our constitution, while getting an uncommunist-like big paycheck from Obama’s government.
Professors from leftist universities seem to like Obama because he allows them to put into action the unworkable, idiotic, leftist crap that they discuss and plan in the faculty lounge.
Activists really like Obama because they so closely resemble him and have the same destructive goals for America as he. They both seek to “fundamentally transform America”, or, stated more simply: they want to destroy America.
Establishment Republicans in Congress seem to like Obama because they recently voted to approve a budget to fully fund every destructive scheme that Obama and his EPA can devise to destroy jobs and increase the unemployment rate for Americans.
ISIS even likes Obama because they understand that he is under public pressure to appear to be fighting them. But he is really just playing at it with his idiotic rules of engagement and his tightly controlled sorties into Syria to bomb sites that are unmanned or are otherwise of limited military value. Meanwhile, while Obama is “containing” ISIS, they are, at their leisure, attacking Paris and San Bernardino while also developing chemical weapons to use on Israel and the United States as Obama allows Syrian “refugees” to freely enter the country with no security checks at all. And don’t forget the Iran nuclear deal, the idiocy of which permits Iran to develop nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them, in case the current ISIS chemical weapons leave anyone alive once they are implemented and detonated.
Those who don’t like Obama are everyone who loves and respects the constitution and the America that Obama is “fundamentally transforming”. Much can be learned about Obama by taking note of who he meets with and where he goes for approval and admiration.
Posted by Dave King at 10:37 AM
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Is liberal/socialist Bernie Sanders actually suggesting that someone getting a free college education will have to work, study and earn it in order to be awarded a diploma? What’s egalitarian about that? What’s free about that? Don’t people who vote Democrat deserve to be handed a free diploma along with the free education, the free healthcare and the free food, and the free housing and the free fifteen dollar an hour job? Don’t Americans have any rights anymore? This is not who we are as a country! We can’t be expected to work for the things we get, we want them to be given to us!
I wonder if liberals are too dumb to see that the free college education they’re being promised will soon result in their being able to find employed only at one of the fifteen dollar an hour jobs Bernie is also promising. But there will be very few of even those base-pay jobs if the minimum wage law becomes a reality, because businesses will shut down when they have to pay their newest, probably temporary and least skilled employees the same wage as someone who has worked for them for several years. This liberal/socialist idiocy must stop. Businesses cannot afford the goodies that Democrats are promising, and it must come to a halt before the nation plunges into a full depression. Why can’t otherwise smart people understand that government control and government edicts have caused the problems with the economy that Bernie and Hillary are complaining about, and more government involvement in private industry will only cause more misery for the very people the Dems are promising the goodies to.
My explanation for this madness is that Bernie and Hillary are just competing with each other to attract class conscious young people to vote for them. I don’t see either Democrat candidate promising free beautician training, or free welder’s school or free barber training. These are jobs that real people have that support families, and the pay likely starts at below fifteen dollars an hour (but these employees earn more as they become more proficient at the work). But these jobs are not cool enough for the Bern/Hill crowd. People coming out of college often end up unemployed because no one wants to hire someone who majored in feminist courses or attended lectures about black history in the mid-1900s. Liberal politicians are just setting their potential voters up for failure, which assures that their voters will likely end up with a bunch of free stuff when they’re on welfare.
Posted by Dave King at 11:05 AM
Friday, February 12, 2016
Socialist, and Democrat presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, in a desperate quest for black votes, met with Al Sharpton following the recent New Hampshire primary election. Although Bernie promises to raise the taxes of every hard-working, tax-paying, patriotic American to confiscatory, punitive and damaging levels, he apparently will not apply these same tax policies to Mr. Sharpton. Al still owes millions of dollars in state and federal taxes from past years that he refuses to pay, and here is our Bernie, hat in hand, begging Al-the-tax-dodger, one of the dirtiest people on the American scene today, for an endorsement. Bernie makes it plain as day how firmly held his socialist, progressive, Democrat principles are when it comes to pandering for votes. Or is he “pimping for votes”? Just think how many poor, hungry children could be fed if Mr. Sharpton would just pay his back-taxes. But neither Al nor Bernie give a damn about poor children. All they care about is their own aggrandizement, wealth and the furthering of the Democrat party’s socialism and destruction of the American economy.
Bernie and Al met in a soul food restaurant in Harlem, but the food was apparently not to Bernie’s elitist, inside-Washington taste because he reportedly did not partake of the ethnic fare he was offered. So Bernie seems to not really be “down with the struggle” as he would have us believe. No, Bernie only identifies with young, white people who are dumb enough to believe that a free college education will get them any job better than the fifteen-dollar minimum-pay slop currently reserved for young people, blacks, Hispanics and whites, who are unable to find a decent job in the Obama economy and its non-recovery.
With these two scoundrels meeting and plotting how to next fleece the American voter, we can easily predict who they’re planning to bitch-slap should Bernie become our next president: the American tax-payer, black and white, with generations of Americans suffering from their socialist, communist idiocy for years to come.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Instead of aggressively attacking, killing and forever eliminating ISIS, President Obama decided to “contain” them. So now, along with allowing them to murder more innocent people over the past year, attacking Paris and San Bernardino whenever they’re ready to do so and conquering more territory in the Middle East, our brave and wise Obama has given them time to develop chemical weapons, putting Americans, along with the rest of the world, at greater risk from this evil scum.
Along with this bad news is the assurance from ISIS itself that they are infiltrating the Syrian “refugee” hoard Obama insists he will import into America in the tens of thousands (and also be aware that our weak-kneed Republican-majority congress fully funded Obama’s Syrian relocation scheme), despite FBI warnings that our government cannot properly screen these people, who have promised to kill Americans.
One wonders how much longer Obama will dither while allowing ISIS the time to develop, ship and detonate a nuclear device in New York City or Chicago. Such an event is the inevitable end product of not killing ISIS immediately. Has our government forgotten that Iran, thanks to Obama and his nuke deal with the Mullahs, is nearly at the end of obtaining their own nuclear device and that they are currently and openly testing a delivery vehicle for such a weapon? And has Washington forgotten that they recently gave Iran a nearly half-trillion dollar prize, as part of Obama’s idiotic Nuke deal that will allow them to more rapidly develop their nuclear weapon?
The evil lurking in the Oval Office exceeds anything this nation has ever seen, and we still have to live with Obama’s anti-America actions and words for another eleven months. It’s hard to tell if America is more threatened by ISIS or the executive branch of our own government.
Posted by Dave King at 7:46 AM
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
At risk of dating myself, I can recall the Jeanette McDonald/ Nelson Eddy and Louis Armstrong movies and the accompanying love songs from the 1930s and 1940s. In the 1950s, How Much Is That Doggie in the Window had pleasant and innocent references to hearth and home and family, but contained no political message, and was a national favorite. In the 1960s, the car songs (Dead Man’s Curve, Little Deuce Coupe, Daddy Took the T-Bird Away) were a close second in popularity to the love songs of the era, and all of the songs were polite, fun and optimistic.
What is the equivalent of the 1960s songs today? I’m asking because I have no idea. Sunday I saw Beyoncé perform for the Super Bowl half-time wearing hard-core, suggestive clothing, singing songs I couldn’t understand (although I’ve heard that the words praised hateful, racist groups and intentionally offended many people) and performing dance moves that used to be reserved for strippers or satanic rites rituals. Such things, done for their shock value, were not done prior to the 1970s, when leftists took over the universities and the media/motion-picture industry. The bottom line is that the current fare of movies and songs no longer reflect respect, good times and youthful fun.
How about the song titled Yellow Polka-Dot-Bikini and all of the Funicello/Avalon beach movies? They were innocent and cute, but those entertainment selections are reminiscent of California when it was growing, wealthy, optimistic and fun, not the increasingly poor, rundown, Mexico-north state of Governor Moonbeam and his crowd of anti-capitalist and anti-American leftists with their high taxes and criticism of anyone who wants to live free and enjoy themselves. The good times have gone away with the passing of California. Maybe California, or at least the idea of California with its former vitality, youth and wealth, were all that made the 1950s and the 1960s memorable, because the current negative attitude of America seems to follow the former boom, and now bust, cycle in California.
Also prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s were social- and geography-neutral songs like Twelve Thirty, In My Garden and, in reference to the previous paragraph, California Dreaming by the Momas and the Papas. Their music was sweet and melodic and didn’t try to influence radicals to take up arms against the police, although they did take a position in favor of drugs to make them feel more laid back and “cool”.
The Vietnam War in the 1970s gave us the protest songs that turned the nation around politically and socially (The Eve of Destruction, The Balled of the Green Beret, Favorite Son). Whether or not you supported the war or were against it, there were songs about it, and they were generally pleasant to listen to. Where are the songs about Kuwait, Iraq or Afghanistan? If there were any, I’ve never heard them. World Wars I and II had loads of music and movies, but not our current military conflicts (maybe the word “conflict” says more about the conflicted attitude of Americans toward the idea of fighting than the actual conflict itself). But our balancing act of indecisive saber-rattling, where we kind-of commit troops to battle today but then sort-of don’t commit them tomorrow, will come to an end and our leaders will get serious about defending the nation when ISIS fully engages us here at home; in New York, Los Angeles and Atlanta, in ways that will make Paris and San Bernardino look like a computer war game. It’s amazing how the thought of chemical bombs in our own neighborhood can awaken us to the threats that have formerly only existed far away and have impacted only foreigners “Over There”, as the World War I song by George M. Cohan referred to that engagement. “Over there” will soon be “right here” at home, and possibly in our own back yards, and Obama and his pretend “containment” of our sworn enemies and his studied avoidance of any serious, militarily advisable opposition to them, will be responsible.
At my current age I only listen to oldies radio stations (the fact that I listen to the radio and not to an iPod says a lot about my position on things, I suppose) so I don’t know if love songs are even recorded for young people to listen to any more. I remember distinctly a few years ago that rap music was full of references to “bitches” and “Hos” and killing police, and based on this downward trend in the music industry, I fear what performers say about women and police today (aside from the media lie of “hands up don’t shoot” and “black lives matter”).
We definitely live in a coarser, meaner, less accepting nation with the coming of Obama and his radical, intolerant, leftist, progressive, feminist and LGBT allies. And did I mention that we live in a more dangerous world under Obama? We do, and the threat is only just getting started.
Posted by Dave King at 12:52 PM
Monday, February 8, 2016
United Health Care is complaining and seeking relief from Obamacare because they are losing money on this big government boondoggle. The deal they entered into with Obama to serve the needs of Obamacare was an attempt to eliminate their competition and jump on the government bandwagon to make some big bucks while basking in the glow and sunshine of our dear president.
I can’t blame them for trying to undermine their competition, that’s how companies become stronger and more efficient. But to join government as a partner in driving their competition out of business is distasteful and bad business, as companies that allied themselves with our current socialist regime are learning. Obama wanted to use the insurance companies to ultimately get a monopoly of insurance coverage under the control of the government, and then he planned to cast the insurance companies aside and nationalize healthcare, just as the insurance companies discarded their competing companies by allying themselves with Obamacare.
The stories of the disaster that would happen to customer costs, insurance premiums and deductibles with the introduction of the Affordable Care Act were not only numerous but have been proven to be true, and the insurance companies should have been smart enough to see the truth. I believe they certainly did know the truth about the possible loss of profits by supporting Obama, but they were assured by him that the government would not only eliminate their competition, but would also indemnify the insurance companies against any loses, and that’s where the tire began to shred and the car left the road.
The insurance companies should not be given a bailout, at tax-payer expense, for their own jaded calculations of profits which have blown up in their faces. CEOs must be smarter than to plot against their own country by joining the government against the people who buy their products. Corporations can’t have it both ways: they can’t pretend to compete in the open market and at the same time make a pact with government to cover their losses and protect them from market competition.
Posted by Dave King at 8:49 AM
Sunday, February 7, 2016
If You Want Proof Of How Bad Liberal Policy Can Make Our Economy, The Republican Majority In Congress Provides That Proof
In an attempt to prove the point to all Americans and get their attention as to how destructive socialism/progressivism can be in their lives, conservatives have occasionally been somewhat sympathetic to the notion of giving liberals/socialists everything they want and then watch as the resulting disaster proves the horrible reality of the left’s destructive ideas and policies. But since conservatives believe in the constitution and enjoy life in capitalist America, and since we know what the resulting America would look like and the pain the nation would suffer if socialism is allowed to take over, and because we know that once socialist policies become law the downward spiral of a nation cannot be halted because the filth that rule such nations will do anything to hang onto their power and make additional glowing promises of things government can give the impoverished population to shut them up as things just get increasingly worse, we would never suggest that a true example of this awful beast be allowed to become law. Being aware of what happens in socialist regimes, one should no longer subscribe to the notion that “it couldn’t get worse”, because with socialists/progressives, it always gets worse, as we’ve seen throughout history, every time it’s tried (as evidence of the foregoing, google the troubles that Venezuela, once a wealthy nation, is having with their socialist economy).
Well, the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, who were voted into office to halt the socialist urge of too many Democrats, especially Obama, didn’t get the anti-socialism memo and allowed exactly the policies of destruction they were elected to stop, to proceed at full speed under Obama.
President Obama, along with his former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has savagely fought Republican’s weak and occasional attempts of pushback trying to halt the left’s progressive/socialist policies of “fundamentally transforming America”. But Obama has, with little real opposition from Republicans, unconstitutionally advanced his radical philosophy beyond anything America has ever experienced or dreamed possible. After seven years of the Obama administration and his dictatorial executive orders that have killed jobs and increased the welfare roles, we see these same fool Democrats complaining about how hard it is to find a good job, how difficult it is for the middle class to pay bills and to pay off college loans (don’t forget that the government took over college loans from the private sector to make it easier and less expensive for students to attend college, but it’s gotten only more expensive) and how much poorer the poor have gotten under Democrat rule. These fool Democrats caused all of the problems that they now complain about! That’s how socialism works.
In the Democrat presidential contest, Hillary takes millions of dollars from Wall Street big shots, but then states, with a straight face, that she will oppose them and punish them for their excesses every time she speaks. The woman has been a mainstream Democrat politician for over twenty years and has herself become a multi-millionaire, and she expects us to believe that she really opposes the source of her wealth: capitalism? Unfortunately her followers are unable to recognize a liar when they see one.
And please be reminded that the socialist Bernie Sanders has socked away a half-million dollars of net worth, has a condo in Vermont, has spent his years in the U.S. Senate being a big shot living on public money and doing nothing to solve the problems he complains about in every one of his speeches in his campaign for president. And our Bernie has stood by and watched the poor get continually poorer under the Obama administration, and all he does is offer them more goodies if they support him for president. Plus, Bernie will only hurt the struggling middle class even more with his idiotic promise to raise their taxes to a ninety percent level if he is given the power to do so.
So the cowardly Republicans have allowed Obama and his Democrat allies to give us clear and frightening examples of what liberalism/socialism look like with little or no objection. And, to repeat, don’t say that it couldn’t get worse, because under liberal/socialist/progressive control it only continues to get even worse, as the bottom and bankruptcy are sought.
Posted by Dave King at 8:38 AM
Friday, February 5, 2016
A description of America, past and present, was heard a few months ago: In the original America, where wealth was being grown and the middle class was expanding, you were free to act, economically and personally, with few restrictions from government. In present-day America you will find the reverse to be true: the restrictions on your actions are great and come from all levels of government, and you are free to do little without first considering taxes or permits to keep you legal and out of trouble with the government.
The need to seek approval and the increasing restrictions on any action you want to take is causing a drain on America with entrepreneurs no longer willing to start new businesses, or they are leaving the country to establish a business in a nation with a more favorable tax environment in which to operate. This is causing the jobless rate to be larger than it was previously and is causing an income drain on the middle class, which is rapidly becoming the underclass.
The government needs more and more of our tax money to pay for its “progressive” policies, the wealthy are taxed heavily in a supposedly capitalist country, great wealth is being concentrated in fewer families (mainly families having government ties) the EPA issues restrictive regulations by the dozen, and Obamacare creates such headaches for small businesses that they are unable to expand their operations fearing that growth may be punishable by the IRS, or they may just go out of business because they can’t afford the lawyers that large corporations hire by the gross to manipulate the laws and the tax codes to find loopholes that will keep them legal.
The government encourages poor people to accept welfare, which causes the jobless rate to increase, further augmenting the welfare roles and the government’s need for more tax-payer money. Since there are fewer tax-payers in this increasingly socialist state of affairs, the suckers who are still working will now have to pay higher taxes to pay for the increased welfare roles, Obamaphones, government giveaways, etc. Then the government allows unlimited numbers of illegal aliens into the country, and these people either take jobs that the working poor need (causing more people to need welfare) or the illegals just go directly on welfare, meaning that the welfare roles grow even more, with the result that more money is needed to support them.
Possibly the only thing one can do in today’s America that doesn’t need government permission or doesn’t require tax advice, is to volunteer for a hospital or a charity, and Obama is probably working on restricting this conduct as well because, after all, you have to drive your car to the hospital or soup kitchen don’t you; and this pollutes the air doesn’t it; and pollution of the air increases the impact of the lie of global warming doesn’t it; and we are told by Obama (the same guy who said you could keep your doctor and your preferred coverage under Obamacare) how hot the earth has become recently; and we have all seen news reports of the ocean rising and spilling down Wall Street in New York City or Ocean Avenue in Miami, and on the PCH in California. The fact that none of these environmentally catastrophic predictions from the radical left have happened, after years of hearing these lies from Paul Ehrlich, Ted Danson, Al Gore and now Obama (who promised to halt the rise of the oceans when he became president. Well the oceans have not risen but it’s not due to any effort from Obama. The ice bergs are not melting and flooding the earth’s coastal areas because warming is not occurring as the scare-mongering liberals have predicted) just again proves that we are being manipulated by a radical left that wants to bury our liberties and America’s prosperity in order to make them dominant over our entire population.
Posted by Dave King at 1:07 PM
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Because American opinion is suspicious of Muslims, following various Islamic extremist/terrorist attacks in America and elsewhere, with special attention being given to killing Christians when they can be found, our Obama decided to give moral support and backing to The Islamic Society of Baltimore and give them a word of comfort, even though the FBI has this same Mosque under surveillance following the discovery of one of its members having planned to bomb an Army recruiting center in Catonsville, Maryland.
One wonders where the people actually being killed by Muslim terrorists, largely Christians and Jews, go to get presidential attention for their dangerous exposure under the weak, blame-America-first Obama administration. This visit by our president would indicate that Obama is making a political statement in favor of his beloved Islam (his own words were that no more beautiful sound can be heard than the call to prayer from a Mosque), and it’s obvious he cares not a whit about his fellow non-Muslim Americans.
It’s questionable and suspicious that Obama would identify his visit as an attempt to quiet Americans and their opposition to radical Muslims, and that he only wants to cool America’s anger and fear with his visit, because that argument is simply wrong-headed. Obama’s thinking assumes that an angry American public is forming at Mosques all over the country, marching and throwing bottles to protest Islam in general, and that is definitely not happening anywhere in America or the liberal press would be shoving it down our throats all day long and reminding us of how racist we are as a nation. So, then, what does it mean for him to visit an FBI surveilled religious site that has not been attacked nor protested against, while at the same time turning his back on the religions of Christianity and Judaism, whose members are actually being attacked and killed by Obama’s favored group’s members?
At the Mosque, Obama apologized for America’s “inexcusable political rhetoric”. Really, Barry? Exactly what is this rhetoric and when has it been spouted? If he refers to a plan to keep Muslims out of our nation until we can get a handle on who is killing Americans in their home towns and how to stop them, then he only needs to think back to his own restrictions place on Iraqis entering our country a few years ago. It seems to me that going a little too far in an attempt to protect American citizens is not a bad idea, and keeping potential bad guys out is a good way to do that. But to the contrary, Obama has issued a dictatorial order to bring tens of thousands of Syrian “refugees” to America even though government officials have stated that they cannot properly vet these new arrivals to be sure they are safe to come here, and his order is doubly dangerous for the citizens of America because we know that ISIS has inserted terrorists in this refugee group with plans to attack America again from inside our borders once they are here.
Obama is simply taking the usual liberal position and blaming America first for any problem in the world. In fact, instead of America being the bad guy, the American military has put itself at extreme risk by defending Muslims in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. For Obama to visit the Mosque and offer them verbal cover is to do in reverse exactly what he wants us to believe Americans are doing against Muslims: he is taking the position that America is wrong again and letting the offended party know that he is on their side against the evil Americans.
Posted by Dave King at 6:51 AM
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
America is more exposed to attacks from foreign sources than we’ve ever been, and all because of Obama’s idiotic and unconstitutional opening of our borders to all comers, whether terrorists or job seekers, and his traitorously ignoring the danger presented by ISIS and other militant groups who publicly express their intent to destroy America and our way of life. Additionally, our politics and our economy are hanging in wait of the next president to save us from the anti-capitalist, anti-American radical left currently represented by Barack Obama. Will we return to the tried and true path to prosperity and national defense, or will the radical and rabid left turn this great nation into the laughing stock of the world by continuing to scheme for America’s destruction?
Hillary Clinton, Obama’s former Secretary of State, has the selfishness and simple-mindedness to expose national secrets to our enemies via her illegal email server, not understanding the death and suffering that such an exposure can mean for people who work daily for our nation’s security, and unconscious of what her security violations can mean to America and its private citizens when our sworn enemies to have access to our plans and our vulnerabilities.
As usual, and as is predictable of our child president when something nasty is exposed during his administration, Obama claims to have had no knowledge of Hillary’s illegal and improper use of a private server located in her home nor of her traitorous passing of highly secret emails over the unsecured server, but only became aware of this situation when he heard about it on TV. Every major happening during Obama’s presidency has been discovered by him only when watching the news on television! Does Obama never get security briefings from his staff? And if he does get such briefings, it’s plain that he doesn’t pay attention to them. I have no problem calling Obama a fool, but the American people certainly are not fools, and they hopefully don’t believe his lies any longer.
The destruction of the economy by Obama is one thing, but to undermine the foundation of our national security and nation defense is another thing altogether. How can Obama’s daughters and his future grandchildren lead pleasant, prosperous lives with our defense from evil forces like ISIS, Iran, China, North Korea and Russia completely violated? And how can future generations of Americans be prosperous considering the thousands of jobs Obama’s EPA has destroyed?
What do the Clintons have on Obama that he remains quiet about Hillary’s crimes and about her exposing America to espionage and security violations, and how can he remain silent as he sees his administration possibly falling apart due to her illegal actions? Can our nation ever hold its head high again considering the progressive/liberal/ Democrat filth and trash we elected in the executive branch seven years ago? The man who swore to “fundamentally transform America” has accomplished his goal, and then he took a step further and is transforming his presidency and this great nation into a banana republic and a bastion of corruption as we see our political system exploding in our faces.
This kind of international embarrassment is what a nation gets when it elects a radical socialist to be president, with the specific intent to “fundamentally transform” the nation. One can only hope we’ve learned a lesson and can sweep aside the weak sisters from congress and the White House and install a patriotic American to the Oval Office.
Posted by Dave King at 8:39 AM
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
When companies are not allowed to do what is best for themselves and their customers, but instead have to hire lawyers to tell them what the government will permit them to do or what the government requires them to do or not to do, you may soon discover that your life and health are placed at risk. That’s what The New York Times is reporting, in an article titled Drug Shortages Forcing Hard Decisions On Rationing Treatments, as being a reality in America today. Of course we have seven years of the ultra-leftist Obama administration and its Obamacare legislation horror show to thank for this life-threatening development. At one time Obama’s minions strutted and bragged about the “new normal” that they called the Affordable Care Act. But now, even The New York Times is criticizing this new direction that the medical industry is taking, and the sad news is that the disaster of Obamacare has not even been fully implemented yet.
One doctor from the Children’s Hospital at Sinai in Baltimore reports numerous cases where there were two children in need of a cancer drug when there was only enough of the drug for one child. The question is not how doctors ethically make the decision of who gets the drug and who doesn’t, rather the question is: why do they have to make the rationing decision in the first place? One cannot disregard the conclusion that the problem has raised its deadly head since Obamacare was forced on the nation with its destructive cost controls, its edicted coverage options, its costly premiums, its outrageously high deductibles, its lack of competition and its taxes on R&D, and this has all happened during the seven years of Obama.
The absence or shortage of drugs for seriously ill patients can result in “increased pain or nausea” or patients may “have to undergo invasive surgery to control cancer when auto-tumor medications are delayed” the report says. It further stated that the drug shortage may result in “higher rates of medical errors, side effects, disease progression and deaths”. The doctor being quoted by the Times used the word “deaths”. And all because the government is in charge of all medical aspects of our lives, and under the radical Obama administration, the government is moving to further invade our personal spaces at light speed.
The Times article reported that various hospitals throughout the country have differing ways of deciding how to ration drugs, which seems to be a hint that the liberal editors of The New York Times would like to see a control board created in Washington to centralize “ethical” decisions related to drug shortages and the need to implement rationing for the entire nation. This power to control, regulate and restrict our medicine and our medical providers, at the federal level, is the same aspect of Obamacare that conservatives warned as being “death squads”.
Ready for Obama’s death squads, anyone? Every prediction made by conservatives warning legislators and the American public against Obamacare are coming true, with no relief even on the horizon, let alone just around the corner. Unless the next president and the federal legislature have the nerve to stand up to the leftist apologists and repeal Obamacare in its entirety, this nation is in for a rough ride that it does not deserve.
Posted by Dave King at 7:12 AM
Monday, February 1, 2016
Republicans and Democrats alike use the term “reach across the aisle”, but Democrats use it mainly when they intend to put Republicans in a bad light for not cooperating with the liberal policies that are destroying America. When the term “reach across the aisle” is used by liberals it does not mean that they want Republicans to negotiate honestly with Democrats and their blame-America-first tendencies, while the Republicans negotiate from the position of their conservative values and principles. It means that Republicans should give in to pressure from the left and give the liberals everything they want.
On the other hand, when you hear a liberal say that they “reach across the aisle” to Republicans and just want to negotiate with them and seek mutual agreement on current issues, you’ll find that this same liberal person, when addressing the American public in past policy statements, also assured American voters that they could keep their own healthcare, period; that they could keep their doctor, period; and that they would save $2500 a year on healthcare costs, period. And now liberals are promising that the government will not take away the constitutional right of a law-abiding citizen to own a weapon for their protection, period. So one believes leftist assurances at his or her own risk.
For Democrats to demand that Republicans “reach across the aisle” is intended to recruit them legislatively and policy-wise into joining the liberals in their leftist schemes that will eventually end with the government gaining ever more control over citizens’ lives and bring more future Democrat voters into the country as illegal aliens. That end is what liberals want when they claim that Republicans are the party of “NO” and that the Republicans will not deal with Democrats as equals.
The term “reach across the aisle” suggests that we should see Republicans voluntarily asking Democrats if they can be of any assistance in the planning and implementing of more government takeover of constitutional and states’ rights issues, or in the borrowing of trillions of additional dollars to pay for big government spending.
Republicans often meekly and weakly state that they can “reach across the aisle” and work with Democrats, but this statement simply means that Republicans have lost the war of words when dealing with their political opponents and feel that they must kneel at the verbal altar of political correctness and make a show of actually listening to and considering the leftist crap that liberal Democrats want to do legislatively. And, unfortunately, too often Republicans do actually join the Democrats on their side of the aisle and pass destructive legislation, and that’s what is leading our nation on a path of destruction: Republicans are afraid to stand up to Democrats and do whatever it takes to block their destructive tendencies.
When using the term “reach across the aisle”, which liberals claim they want Republicans to do, this usage of the term does not mean that Democrats will compromise with Republicans in halting our run-away spending and borrowing and return to economic progress and liberty for American citizens. The “reach across the aisle” thing is a smoke screen and a one-way street pointing left: Republicans do the reaching and Democrats will accept their help in passing destructive legislation. This give-and-not-receive practice of Republicans must end now!
Posted by Dave King at 12:33 PM