The irony of his own words must be lost on him:
President Obama took a dig at the “drill, baby, drill” slogan employed by Republicans and popularized by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin during a speech Wednesday on energy.
The president made an offhand reference to the slogan as an example of the empty rhetoric politicians have used in the past when it comes to energy policy.
“But here’s the thing — we’ve been down this road before. Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon. Working folks haven’t forgotten that,” Obama said in a speech at Georgetown University, according to prepared remarks. “It hit a lot of people pretty hard. But it was also the height of political season, so you had a lot of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians waving three-point-plans for two-dollar gas — when none of it would really do anything to solve the problem.”
Then the president made a departure from his prepared remarks: “You remember, ‘drill baby drill.’ “
So the same sloganeer that gave us “empty rhetoric” as “Change You Can Believe In”, “Hope and Change”, and “We are the one’s we have been waiting for” (among countless other slogans) is now decrying empty slogans? At the same time he drops another tired slogan that “drilling won’t do anything to solve the problem of high gas prices”?
Doesn’t he realize that nothing good happens to him when he goes off of his tele-binky?
President Obama finally and quietly accepted his “transparency” award from the open government community this week — in a closed, undisclosed meeting at the White House on Monday.
The secret presentation happened almost two weeks after the White House inexplicably postponed the ceremony, which was expected to be open to the press pool.
This time, Obama met quietly in the Oval Office with Gary Bass of OMB Watch, Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight, Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Patrice McDermott of OpenTheGovernment.org, without disclosing the meeting on his public schedule or letting photographers or print reporters into the room.
NBC: We’re not reporting on GE avoiding all federal taxes, which is totally unrelated to the fact that GE is our parent company
Nothing to see here, move along:
It’s the kind of accountability journalism that makes readers raise an eyebrow, if it doesn’t raise their blood pressure first. General Electric Co., reported the New York Times last week, earned $14.2 billion in worldwide profits last year, including $5.1 billion in the United States — and paid exactly zero dollars in federal taxes.
The front-page story drew widespread commentary in newspapers and on many Web sites. ABC News and Fox News, among others, were all over it.
But the story was conspicuously absent from the reportage of one news organization: NBC.
During its Friday broadcast, “NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams” had no time to mention that America’s largest corporation had essentially avoided paying federal taxes in 2010. Or its Saturday, Sunday or Monday broadcasts, either.
Did NBC’s silence have anything to do with the fact that one of its parent companies is General Electric?
Of course not! Just a simple “editorial decision”, nothing more. Nope, there were bigger fish to fry:
But to others, NBC’s silence looks like something between a lapse and a coverup. The satirical “Daily Show” on Monday noted that “Nightly News” had time on Friday to squeeze in a story about the Oxford English Dictionary adding such terms as “OMG” and “muffin top,” but didn’t bother with the GE story.
Even Jon Stewart is cracking on NBC for this? Yeah, but even some erstwhile liberal groups have a problem with it (evil corporations, etc.):
Ignoring stories about its parent company’s activities is “part of a troubling pattern” for NBC News, said Peter Hart, a director at Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a liberal media watchdog group that often documents instances of corporate interference in news. He cited a series of GE-related stories that NBC’s news division has underplayed over the years, from safety issues in GE-designed nuclear power plants to the dumping of hazardous chemicals into New York’s Hudson River by GE-owned plants.
What’s more, Hart notes, NBC News has covered corporate tax-avoidance stories before — that is, when they didn’t involve GE. All three networks’ news divisions, according to Hart, have become reliable sources of publicity for their parents’ other corporate interests, doing news stories about upcoming sporting events or new TV shows carried on their own networks.
This isn’t media bias. It’s media corruption.
When he’s not busy working on stealing Republicans’ identity, Chuck the Schmuck likes to pass the time rehearsing his talking points with his fellow Senate Democrats…unaware that the phone call is not muted and reporters are picking up his marching orders. Details:
Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, began to instruct his fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process.
After thanking his colleagues — Barbara Boxer of California, Benjamin L. Cardin of Maryland, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — for doing the budget bidding for the Senate Democrats, who are facing off against the House Republicans over how to cut spending for the rest of the fiscal year, Mr. Schumer told them to portray John A. Boehner of Ohio, the speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”
A minute or two into the talking-points tutorial, though, someone apparently figured out that reporters were listening, and silence fell.
Heh. Schmucky robotically parrots the “caucus” talking points. Obviously, the Dems are laying the groundwork for a government shutdown, and these talking points are merely practice for their justification for a shutdown: “These extremely extreme extremists are responsible. Not just responsible, but extremely responsible!”
And right on cue, Babs Boxer seizes the opportunity to…well, to stick with the telegraphed message. Isn’t that like a pitcher telling the batter “I’m going to throw a fastball down the middle” and then actually doing it? She just pretended like no one had heard it! 😆
Then the conference call began in earnest, with the Democrats right on message.
“We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,” said Ms. Boxer, urging the House to compromise on the scale of spending cuts and to drop proposed amendments that would deny federal financing for Planned Parenthood and for government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.
Those extremists! Why, they don’t want to federally subsidize PP’s baby slaughtering or child sex trafficking! The nerve!
In the end, I don’t think this hurts Schmucky that much. After all, we’re talking reporters here…AKA Democrat constituents.
Good times, good times. From Matt Welch:
“We knew that…if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world,” the president said last night. “It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen….Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”
Do you remember when Democrats recoiled at the doctrine of preemptive war? Last night was the final reminder that, with the exception of some diehards like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), Democrats when wielding power are only against Republican preemptive war. If anything, they are more promiscuous in choosing conflicts than their warmaking brethren on the other side of the aisle; just less likely to go all-in with ground troops. Does it satisfy the consciences of Bush-hating interventionists merely that Obama made more nice-sounding comments about subsuming America’s lead role within a United Nations-blessed coalition? And have they thought through even for one moment the kind of bar-lowering precedent they’re setting for the next Republican president to send ground troops into wherever the hell?
You know, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that Democrats where more interested in the party label of the Commander-in-Chief than they were in actual military objectives or national interest!
Welch finishes off the illogical imbeciles of the left thusly:
And for those Democrats who are either cheering on or grimly supporting the president’s actions, just remember this: Unless a Ron Paul-type miraculously emerges from the GOP field, the next Republican president now has an even lower bar than before when it comes to launching a preemptive war. There’s a reason why the biggest fans of last night’s speech were hawks like William Kristol: If you didn’t like Iraq, you really won’t like Iran. And when that day comes, please don’t debase yourselves by crying crocodile tears over the Constitution, or pretending for even one second you are anti-war.
I don’t know what Welch is worried about. It’s not like the left is a gang of hypocrites or inconsistent cretins, right? For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was an example of sarcasm.
To the morons who keep putting these boobs back in Congress: Why do you hate the rest of America? From CNS News:
Appearing at a press conference with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) on job creation, Rep. Andrews said, “I agree with my colleague and friend that drilling for oil off the coast is a problem, not a solution, but let’s get back to the main point here that if the Republicans really believe that was really a job-creating idea, why don’t they put it on the floor?”
Here’s a typical left-wing canard right here:
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of the House Budget Committee, said there would be no “immediate” reduction of gas prices from more drilling.
Using that “logic” (and when it comes to liberals, I use that term loosely), why bother eating healthy or exercising, since you’re not going to see the “immediate” reduction in weight? Pass the extra-meat pizza, dude! Besides, it’s just flat-out not true. Remember when Bush lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling in 2008? Just the promise of lifting the moratorium resulted in the precipitous drop in oil futures prices.
Had these imbeciles not gotten their way during the Clinton years, we would have oil flowing from ANWR by now and available in gas stations and refineries across America. But we were told in 1995 that “it will take at least 10 years before we get the oil out”. Sixteen years and another $3/gallon later, that oil is still in the ground, thanks to the treehuggers.
Exit question: If drilling for oil destroys jobs, does this mean that Brazil’s unemployment is about to skyrocket?
The left is squealing like a pig over this. Excerpt:
In a blow to public employee unions, the Republican-controlled Florida House passed a bill Friday that would ban payroll deductions of dues and require labor organizations to get individual members’ OK before using their payments for political purposes.
What?!? You mean that unions won’t be able to use members’ money for political purposes without their consent anymore? Why, that’s outrageous! Surely the Constitution states somewhere that unions should be allowed to take a Christian member’s dues and fund pro-abortion candidates.
Republicans insisted in floor debate that the bill’s intent is not to harm unions but to empower public employees by giving them more control over how their dues are spent and to separate government from politics.
“We don’t need to be involved in the collections of union dues, which then can be used for partisan political activity,” said Rep. Chris Dorworth, a Lake Mary Republican who sponsored the bill. “It affords members of labor unions the right to determine whether or not they want to be part of the political agenda of the union.”
As of today, a union (such as the Florida Education Association, the state version of the NEA teachers union) can use the dues of a conservative member to bankroll the campaign of a leftwing nutjob, against the will of the conservative member. The proposed House bill will end that practice.
Apparently, the talking points memo has been circulated (note the phraseology of the statements):
“The lawmakers who voted for this bill have signaled their desire to use the power of government to single out and attack the hard-working men and women who serve Florida in public employment,” said Andy Ford, president of the Florida Education Association, the statewide teachers union. “It’s simply un-American.”
“This isn’t just about elections,” Templin added. “This is about keeping working people out of the (legislative) process because if there’s not a strong organization with the resources necessary, the Chamber of Commerce and the other special-interest groups are the only ones here.”
“Please don’t put lipstick on this elephant,” said Rep. Janet Cruz, D-Tampa. “This bill is about one thing. It’s about silencing the voices of working men and women.”
How quaint: “working”. Because apparently, the only “workers” in the state are union members, right? No one else “works” in the state of FL, do they?
Hillary: Obama didn’t need Congressional approval to attack Libya, since we had the international community on board.
Her Highness, telling us that we passed John Kerry’s “global test”:
Tapper asked Clinton, “Why not got to Congress?”
“Well, we would welcome congressional support,” the Secretary said, “but I don’t think that this kind of internationally authorized intervention where we are one of a number of countries participating to enforce a humanitarian mission is the kind of unilateral action that either I or President Obama was speaking of several years ago.”
Three things here:
1. OK, could someone show me where the Constitution requires the president to declare war only with Congressional approval except in cases of other countries joining in the attack on another country? I must have slept through that in history class, because I don’t see such an exception anywhere!
2. Why is the Hilldawg talking about “unilateral” action by the U.S. in the case of Iraq, when the international coalition we had back then is twice the size of the international coalition we have in Libya right now? The fact is that Oba-Mao authorized an attack on Libya without Congressional consultation or approval, and he has less assistance there than we had in Iraq in 2003.
3. This is quite the reversal of stances for Shrillary, which I’m guessing has nothing to do with the fact that the Commie in Chief is a fellow Democrat!
Earlier in 2007, then-Senator Hillary Clinton said in a speech on the Senate floor that, “If the administration believes that any — any — use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.
Oh, and how’s about this bit of inspiration from the administration?
“I think that this had a limited timeframe, a very clearly defined mission which we are in the process of fulfilling,” Clinton said.
“Limited”, huh? Defense Secretary Gates doesn’t share that sentiment:
On “This Week,” ABC News’ Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper asked Secretary of Defense Gates how much longer we might be there.
“Some NATO officials say this could be three months, but people in the Pentagon think it could be far longer than that. Do you think we’ll be gone by the end of the year? Will the mission be over by the end of the year?” Tapper asked
“I don’t think anybody knows the answer to that,” Gates said.
Glad to see the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. Friggin’ wonderful.
Mitchell, referred to by Ace as the “executive fellatrix”, gives us some insight as to why Obama attacking Libya without Congressional approval is way different (and more proper) than Bush attacking Iraq with Congressional approval.
You know who doesn’t define the Obama Doctrine? The Obama administration. Nope, they allow this fellatrix to “report” that for them.
Anywho, here’s her summary, along with my notes:
1. “When you have a catastrophe you can avert”. That pretty much exists anywhere at any time, right?
2. “The benefits outweigh the costs”. That pretty much governs every decision a human makes, no? Duh.
3. “You have an international or multilateral support”. You know what she means, right? She means “the French support it.” Because to the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy), the Frogs are the object of their affection. After all, Bush had international and multilateral support in Iraq, except the Frogs were against it (probably a good thing, since it would have been embarrassing to see them surrendering to an Australian camera crew in Fallujah, wouldn’t it?). But hey, now the Frogs are helping in Libya, so it’s all good, right?
4) “Go for it.”
Apparently, if the first three conditions are met, then the president can “go for it” without Congressional approval, the Constitution be damned. Because the French are on board. So we’re good, thanks.
As for Mitchell: nope, no liberal media bias!
What a difference a president’s party makes, huh? Turns out you can crap on the Constitution and get defended by many in your party, even if they look like the brazen, shameless, hypocritical scumbags that they are.
Here’s Howard Scream in 2003, when a Republican was looking to launch a military operation in the Middle East:
I do not believe the President should have been given a green light to drive our nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and the American people for why this war is necessary, and without a requirement that we at least try first to work through the United Nations…
To this day, the President has not made a case that war against Iraq, now, is necessary to defend American territory, our citizens, our allies, or our essential interests.
The Administration has not explained how a lasting peace, and lasting security, will be achieved in Iraq once Saddam Hussein is toppled.
Here’s Deano now, in 2011, with his bud Oba-Mao calling the shots (good stuff at the 7:18 mark of the video clip, with Klein calling him out on his hypocrisy at the 7:30 mark):
“I don’t think you stay out of these things”…”We have an interest in Libya.”
Funny that Dean whips out the discredited leftist talking points about “being lied to” with regards to Iraq. You know why that’s funny? Because Dean was leading the anti-war charge before military action began in Iraq, before he knew whether or not Saddam had any WMD’s, etc. in other words, he was a peacenik up front, but now he’s trying to say his 2003 opposition was based on errors/lies about WMD’s after the war began? That’s a damned lie, and Dean knows it. Luckily for Dean, it was on MSDNC, so only two people saw his lie as it happened.
Well, that’s the logical extension of what he said in 2007. Observe:
Ladies and gentlemen, I drafted an outline of what I think the Constitutional limits [garbled] have on the President with the War Clause. I went to five leading scholars, Constitutional scholars, and they drafted a treatise for me that is being distributed to every Senator. And I want to make it clear, and I’ll make it clear to the President: that if he takes this nation to war in Iran, without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him.
Minor technicality: only the House can impeach a president, not the Senate (in which Biden was at the time of this statement). The Senate then votes on whether to remove the impeached president. Come on, Joe, Bubba’s Senate trial wasn’t that long ago, was it?
Let’s see: in 2007, Biden was still in the Senate and a Republican was in the White House. Biden thought, for some weird reason, that we might attack Iran, and if that attack were to come, it would come via the Republican president not consulting with Congress.
Fast forward to 2011. The Democrat president launched an attack on Libya without Congressional approval. So I’m sure that the Vice Plagiarist feels the exact same way, in order to remain consistent with his words from four years ago, right? Right?
Now, with a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska’s continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico — and a de facto moratorium covering the rest — Obama tells the Brazilians:
“We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.”
Obama wants to develop Brazilian offshore oil to help the Brazilian economy create jobs for Brazilian workers while Americans are left unemployed in the face of skyrocketing energy prices by an administration that despises fossil fuels as a threat to the environment and wants to increase our dependency on foreign oil.
Just to summarize: America exploring for oil, bad. Other countries not named America exploring for oil, good. Notice that Oba-Mao said “we want to help you“? He’d rather keep us dependent on foreign oil, and if he has to help the process along, he’s happy to do it.
This man’s contempt for the country over which he presides his sickening. If America can wean herself off of American Idol long enough to pay attention to this madman, he would be routed out of office at the first possible opportunity.
Exit question: Is it just a coincidence, and not at all reflective of Chicagoland-style corruption and gangsta politics, that Soros is heavily invested in Brazilian oil?
Pass the popcorn! 😆 From Politico:
A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.
Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part.
Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.
However, as Ed points out:
Traditionally, though, consultations with Congress have sufficed in the past. For instance, Congress didn’t specifically authorize Ronald Reagan to attack Libya in 1986 in Operation El Dorado Canyon, a retaliation for a terrorist bombing that killed American troops in Germany at a nightclub. Reagan consulted Congressional leadership before ordering the attack, an act of war by any definition. Presidents have conducted similar military actions without formal acts of Congress to authorize them, meaning it has a long precedent, even if it’s not necessarily a good idea. According to the report and Kucinich’s own objection, Obama did consult Congress before engaging in Operation Odyssey Dawn.
This will lead to nothing, of course, but I do enjoy some blue-on-blue action to start my week off right! 🙂
Who’s up for some more “D#mn, I sure I am awesome!” from B.O.? At a Dem fundraiser:
“The first time around it’s like lightning in a bottle. There’s something special about it, because you’re defying the odds. And as time passes, you start taking it for granted that a guy named Barack Hussein Obama is president of the United States,” Obama said. “But we should never take it for granted.”
Ah, yes: “You should never take me for granted. After all, I may not be here this time in two years.”
This man’s ego is bigger than Michael Moore’s food bill! Consider this a “you’ve got me” redux.
Liberal blogger wonders: Why does the MSM ignore death threats against Wisconsin Republicans, and why does the rest of the left condone those threats?
I am about to break one of my own rules here by linking to the moonbat blog Huffington Post. I never link to the moonbat blogs, because they can generate their own traffic by trolling the dark, depraved cellars of mankind all by themselves. That said, this time merits an exception. Plus, it’s my blog, so I get to both make and break the rules here. 😆
Undoubtedly, this guy will now be threatened for breaking Commandment #1 among the left: “Thou shalt not stray from the leftist plantation, either in philosophy or in conduct, lest ye be persecuted.” You must, must read the guy’s column! Here’s an excerpt:
Why isn’t the mainstream media talking about the death threats against Republican politicians in Wisconsin?
Try to set aside whatever biases or preconceptions you might have for a moment and ask yourself why death threats against politicians aren’t considered national news, especially in the wake of the all too fresh shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and other bystanders. And there hasn’t just been one death threat, but a number of them.
[Examples here. Like I said, go read the column! – CL]
On the other hand, if you read conservative blogs or listen to conservative media, you know all about these threats because people like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and websites like Newsbusters and BigJournalism have not only been talking about the death threats for days now but they’ve been talking about the mainstream and liberal media ignoring the threats for days.
Ignoring the story of these threats is deeply, fundamentally wrong. It’s bad, biased journalism that will lead to no possible good outcome and progressives should be leading the charge against it.
Just before writing this article, I did a Google search and it’s stunning to find out that the right wing media really isn’t exaggerating — proven death threats against politicians are being ignored by the supposedly honest media. If you’ve never agreed with a single thing that Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly et al have said about anything, you can’t in any good conscience say that they don’t have a point here. Death threats are wrong and if a story like Wisconsin is national news for days, then so are death threats.
He then goes on to make the case against public sector unions’ ability to collectively bargain by quoting the golden calf of the left: FDR! Ouch! He outlines the “bile and invective” he got from the left for doing this, which leads him to wonder:
Is this really what liberalism has come to in 2011? (Welcome to Realityville, pal. Liberal population here: 1. You’re all alone, dude. – CL)
Since working with Breitbart, my position on political issues hasn’t changed but I’d be lying if I didn’t say I’m deeply disappointed by the virulent, lockstep attitude I see on the left. My experience in the last few months tells me what I would not have believed possible; on any number of issues (including Pigford, by the way) I’ve seen liberals act much nastier and with less factual honesty than the conservatives… and this includes on issues where I disagree with conservatives.
Burying the death threat story is a clear example of intellectual dishonesty and journalistic bias.
I doubt that he and I agree on very much of anything. However, he is 100% dead on with this. The MSM is a friggin’ joke for its embargo of these threats, and the left is losing what shards of credibility they have remaining (which, if recent elections are any indicator, is damning). Kudos to one liberal for having the stones to say “Guys, can’t we for once be intellectually honest?”, even if his brethren answer with a resounding “Not a chance, pal!”
Need another reason why government employees should have NO collective “bargaining” rights? Look no further:
Wow. Here is another reason public unions should not be allowed to collectively bargain with politicians running a local or state government. Union leadership – including those from law enforcement and firefighters – have sent letters out to local businesses demanding they publicly oppose the efforts of Wisconsin’s legislature and governor or face the consequences.
Not only are they suggesting they publicly oppose the fiscal-sanity measures in Wisconsin, they are flat out telling them they will publicly boycott businesses who do not proactively do so. From James Taranto’s opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday.
In the letter to Wisconsin businessmen, however, we see why so-called collective bargaining is particularly corrupting to the police. Although the letter explicitly threatens only an economic boycott, when it is written on behalf of the police–of those on whom all citizens depend to protect their safety–it invariably raises the prospect of another kind of boycott. Can a businessman who declines this heavy-handed “request” be confident that the police will do their job if he is the victim of a crime–particularly if the crime itself is in retaliation for his refusal to support “the dedicated public employees who serve our communities”?
SteveM shows an excerpt of one of those letters from the government union thugs to area businesses (emphasis added):
The undersigned groups would like your company to publicly oppose Governor Walker’s efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin. While we appreciate that you may need some time to consider this request, we ask for your response by March 17. In the event that you do not respond to this request by that date, we will assume that you stand with Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters, and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities.
Cops to businesses who might support Walker: Man, it sure would be a “shame” if you called 911 because you needed assistance and we “just so happened” to get delayed in responding to your call…wouldn’t it?
Firefighters to businesses who might support Walker: Man, wouldn’t it just suck to see your business go up in flames and it “just so happened” to take us too long to respond to the blaze?
UPDATE (03/18/2011 – 07:35 EST): Seems that actual WI cops (the rank-and-file) are throwing the author of the extortion letter under the police cruiser. The author of the extortion letter is James Palmer, the Executive Director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Officers Association (WPPA). As Steven Spingola points out, Palmer isn’t a cop, nor has he ever been one…he’s a lawyer! As such, real cops are distancing themselves from Palmer and are publicly trashing the guy.
Twitter may get tax break in order to keep from moving, and tax break is being considered by…San Francisco?
Thanks to Donna for sending this big, juicy slab of irony my way. From San Fransicko:
San Francisco’s best shot to prevent Twitter from migrating south faces a key vote Wednesday on whether to give the microblogging service a six-year tax break.
The growing San Francisco-based company has explored a move to Brisbane, where its business costs would be lower. San Francisco has a 1.5 percent payroll tax whereas Brisbane does not have one.
Supervisor Jane Kim, whose district includes the mid-Market Street area where Twitter would move, has broken from predecessor Chris Daly’s stance and is advocating for the passage of legislation that would give Twitter a six-year payroll tax break if it decides to move into the building at Market and Ninth streets. The tax break would apply to all qualifying businesses that relocate to the portion of the Tenderloin and the mid-Market Street area that city officials hope to revitalize
“I’m philosophically against cutting taxes,” Kim said Monday. “I’ve had to think about this long and hard. This is targeted enough. It’s specific enough. It’s short enough.”
OK, just to make sure I’m understanding this properly…
You are “philosophically against cutting taxes”, presumably because you believe that (a) government can better use that revenue than the person or business who earned it; (b) taxing businesses is somehow good for the economy; (c) tax cuts do not help the economy in any way; (d) letting a business keep more of the money it earned is morally repugnant; (e) tax policy has no impact on business decisions (such as hiring, firing, relocating, etc.) whatsoever; or (f) some or all of the above.
If you are “philosophically against cutting taxes” for any (much less all) of the aforementioned reasons, then on what planet does it make sense to extend the tax break for Twitter? If it is truly believed that by Twitter getting this tax break they will stay in San Franfreakshow, which will in turn benefit the San Franistan economy, then doesn’t that completely shatter your “philosophy” of being against tax cuts of any kind? It would if there were any sense of logic, consistency, or (in this case) irony in your body.
Folks, let that sink in for a moment: “Tax cuts are bad, bad things…which is why I’m going to support a tax cut for Twitter.” Haven’t these economic illiterates been telling us since the JFK administration that “tax cuts for the wealthy and for businesses don’t work”?
Well, she has a tough sell, based on the reactions of her fellow Board members:
Supervisor John Avalos said the proposal doesn’t seem fair given the financial struggles of residents in his district.
“Who are the [Twitter] investors?” he said. “Probably some of the wealthiest people in this country. And we are giving them more wealth.”
There you go, pal. You stick to your guns, sir! And when Twitter moves out and takes their jobs, property taxes, etc., with them, you will have truly won the day!
Democrats…vote fraud? The heck you say! From MI:
Two former leaders of the Oakland County Democratic Party are facing a total of nine felonies for allegedly forging election paperwork to get fake Tea Party candidates on November’s ballot. …
Former Oakland County Democratic Chair Mike McGuinness and former Democratic Operations Director Jason Bauer face up to 14 years in prison if convicted.
“Some of the people didn’t even know they were on the ballot till they began receiving delinquency notices of filings that were required as a candidate,” said Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard.
The sheriff says 23 statewide races had questionable Tea Party candidates on the ballot and the investigation may go beyond Oakland County.
You know, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that Democrats like to cheat when it comes to elections! If I didn’t know any better, that is.
Speaker who presided over a Congress that passed no budget: You know, a bunch of continuing resolutions is no way to be fiscally responsible!
And the freaks in San Fransicko keep sending this dolt back to Congress?
San Fran Nan and her ilk refused to pass a budget, one of the many reasons she is no longer House Speaker. Yet she complains that this is no way to fund the government? While I certainly agree with her (did I just say that?) that this is no way to fund the government, is she really the one who needs to have her botox-laden grill in front of the cameras to take this position?
Exit quote from Pe-loco: “Democrats have long fought for fiscal responsibility” Pfffffffffffffff-bwahahahahahahahaha! 😆
Newsbusters is all over it. Excerpt:
…Not taking this seriously were ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, and NPR. LexisNexis and closed-caption dump searches of “Wisconsin and ‘death threat'” produced zero results for these so-called news outlets throughout the month of March.
When you compare this to the hysterical coverage of last year’s Tea Party rallies and town hall protests, where conservatives were regularly depicted as either hostile or fomenting violence, one has to wonder how actual death threats against sitting politicians would not be considered newsworthy.
This seems particularly curious after all the talk about hostile rhetoric immediately following the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) in January.
Now, less than two months later, actual death threats against politicians are being investigated in Wisconsin, and five major news outlets are boycotting the story.
Remember when the MSM linked (but didn’t really link, wink wink nudge nudge) the Tea Party and talk radio to the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ)? Despite a total lack of any evidence or threats whatsoever, the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) blamed the right and bemoaned the alleged “lack of civility” and the “tone” of political discourse.
So how does the MSM report actual threats against Republican politicians? Crickets…chirping…
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Scathing takedown by Jay Cost:
Nobody in the United States is as intent on reminding his fellow citizens just how awesome he is than Barack Obama. That’s what the “Age of Obama” is all about. But that seems to be about it. The sense of awe he has cultivated has not been used for any great purpose — not to forge a bipartisan compromise on the stimulus, not to push through an intelliglble health care plan, not to handle the deficit, not to lead on any of the various foreign policy flareups. This is more a clerkship presidency, with a commander in chief either unwilling or unable to take the lead on the most challenging issues of the day.
Still voting “present”, even as chief executive.
I cynically asked a friend, over the weekend: How long until the global “warming” nuts blame the massive earthquake and tsunami in Japan on their junk science fad? Granted, it was mostly a rhetorical question, but you always have some schmuck who doesn’t know that it’s a rhetorical question.
In this case, said schmuck is the global “warming” crowd. Tim Blair outlines their lunacy, starting with the opening line:
“An earthquake with an 8.9 magnitude struck Japan,” writes a concerned citizen. “And some say climate change isn’t real?!”
Um, yes, “concerned citizen”, “some” say that “climate change” isn’t real. I don’t know if even Gore is stupid enough to blame this on his junk science fad, but I don’t want to give the Father of the Internet too much credit if it’s not due. Continuing:
So far, today’s tsunami has mainly affected Japan – there are reports of up to 300 dead in the coastal city of Sendai – but future tsunamis could strike the U.S. and virtually any other coastal area of the world with equal or greater force, say scientists. In a little-heeded warning issued at a 2009 conference on the subject, experts outlined a range of mechanisms by which climate change could already be causing more earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic activity.
“When the ice is lost, the earth’s crust bounces back up again and that triggers earthquakes, which trigger submarine landslides, which cause tsunamis,” Bill McGuire, professor at University College London, told Reuters.
An appropriate response is here.
These people are clinically deranged, period.
Sweet mother of mercy, please let this be a cruel joke. Excerpt:
Republicans in Washington are trying to recruit Joe Scarborough to run against Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) next year.
Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), told The Hill on Thursday that he has talked to Scarborough a couple times about a Senate bid. And he indicated he’s still working on persuading the MSNBC host to run for the upper chamber.
Scarborough is a RINO, period. Do you honestly think he would have a show in front of both of MSDNC’s viewers if he were a staunch conservative?
Cornyn recruited Charlie Crist in 2009 to run for Mel Martinez’ seat, and heartily endorsed him very early. Crist ended up bolting the party and running as independent, getting crushed by Rubio. Cornyn also strongly endorsed Arlen
Sphincter Specter in his bid to keep his PA Senate seat, and like Crist, Specter left the GOP and became a Democrat.
Cornyn has a “reverse Midas touch”, in that everything he touches turns to crap. He needs to stay the h3ll out of my state, and other states, too. The less involved Cornyn is in our Senate race, the better the chances we have to boot Obama’s lap dog Bill Nelson.
WI Democrat fleebagger: Fining us won’t bring us back! WI GOP: Fine, then we’ll pass the union-busting bill without you being here!
Democrats said the fines would have no effect on bringing them back to the state.
“They’ve messed with our staffs,” said Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton). “They’ve taken away our parking spaces. They’ve extorted our paychecks. They’ve sent the State Patrol after us. And now they’ve fined us $100 a day.
“I don’t know what more they need to do to get the point that it’s not working.”
Thanks for proving our point, jackwagon. You leave us no choice:
Two Democratic state senators said they think Republicans plan to pass parts of Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal that take away collective bargaining rights from public workers without them.
Senate Republican leaders weren’t saying why they hastily created a conference committee that’s meeting later Wednesday night.
A source confirmed to WISC-TV that Republican senators intend to remove fiscal portions of the budget bill in order to pass it without Democratic senators.
See, there needs to be at least one Democrat present for budget-related bills to be voted upon, but what if you strip out the public employees union collective bargaining part of the bill (and into a separate bill) that sent these miscreant Dem cowards on the lam in the first place? Answer: Moonbat rage! 😆
By the way, you ever get the feeling that irony is lost on these schmucks? From one of the fleebaggers, Democrat Chris Larson:
What Republicans did was an affront to democracy. Never shall a voter doubt which party stands for the working class, and which for the rich.
Refusing to do your taxpayer-funded job, a job that requires voting on stuff, is not an “affront to democracy”, but actually showing up and voting on a bill is? Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Nice to see the GOP grow a pair and hobble the fleebaggers.
He secured himself a couple of mistresses for America, mind you. Oh, yes…he went there.
There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate. And what I can tell you is that when I did things that were wrong, I wasn’t trapped in situation ethics, I was doing things that were wrong, and yet, I was doing them. I found that I felt compelled to seek God’s forgiveness. Not God’s understanding, but God’s forgiveness. I do believe in a forgiving God. And I think most people, deep down in their hearts hope there’s a forgiving God.
How selfless of him, doing it for us, the common folk.
Yes, Newt, there is a forgiving God. May He forgive you for trying such a crazy line of thinking out on us as this pap.
Exit question: By logical extension, doesn’t this mean that Bill Clinton really, really “loved his country”? 😆
Reid: I’m dead serious about deficit reduction, except the federal funding of the “cowboy poetry festival” in NV
Now if this isn’t what the Founding Fathers had in mind for an appropriate federal role, I don’t know what is!
Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nev.) slammed the Republicans’ budget proposal on Tuesday as ‘mean-spirited’ and complained it would eliminate money for a cowboy poetry festival that brings tens of thousands of tourists to Nevada.
“The mean-spirited bill, H.R. 1, eliminates National Public Broadcasting,” said Reid in a floor speech. “It eliminates the National Endowment of the Humanities, National Endowment of the Arts. These programs create jobs. The National Endowment of the Humanities is the reason we have in northern Nevada every January a cowboy poetry festival. Had that program not been around, the tens of thousands of people who come there every year would not exist.” (People wouldn’t exist if there were no cowboy poetry festival? So the subsidies keep people alive? – CL)
The Republican plan would slash $57 billion from the budget for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. That budget is likely to face a vote in the Senate on Tuesday evening.
I’m guessing Babs Boxer is going to decry the GOP “vendetta” against cowboys.
Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal just called to say how gay a “cowboy poetry” shindig sounds. How does a “cowboy poem” sound? “There once was a cowpoke from Nantucket…”
Nice job, NV, for sending this #sshat back to DC to represent you.
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett