Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Florida primary tomorrow. The highly coveted Crush Liberalism endorsement goes to…

(drum roll)…Mitt Romney.

Admittedly, this is a lukewarm endorsement.  I wish there was a candidate that had the “Wow!” factor that W gave me in 2000 and that ObaMao gave the left four years ago.  But there isn’t.  There are candidates I would have liked to have seen jump in or, in the case of Tim Pawlenty, stick around.

But here’s the thing: This country may not survive another Barack The Terrible reign of economic and freedom terror.  And I’m afraid that Romney is the only guy in the race capable of ending it.  I do believe he has enough appeal to the independents, and that the conservatives won’t sit at home like they did when Juan McAmnesty ran in 2008 on account of recognition of how high the stakes are, that Romney can pull it off.

Do I have concerns about Romney?  Sure.  The same flip-flopping we skewered Kerry over in 2004 is, I think, fair game this time around.  The ignorant masses probably won’t recognize that Bain Capital has a good, not bad, role.  That said, though, I think that people who may not have strong leanings one way or the other will be less put off by Romney than by Newt, Santorum, or Paul.

I recognize the need for a solid conservative.  But I think that Romney is more conservative than he’s given credit for.  However, it’s beyond dispute that he’d govern far more conservatively than Chairman Zero.  You factor in a Republican House and a soon-to-be-Republican Senate, and I think he’ll probably rubber stamp any conservative legislation that lands on his desk.

Newt’s a brilliant speaker and a phenomenal debater.  But people just don’t like him.  And as sad as it is to say, our elections are largely a popularity contest, whether we like it or not.  It is for these reasons that I’m voting for Romney tomorrow in the Florida primary.  Your mileage may vary.

January 30, 2012 Posted by | conservatism, Florida, Newt Gingrich, Romney | 12 Comments

Obama in SOTU: We partnered with private sector for electric car batteries. “Partner”: We’re filing for bankruptcy.

And ObaMao’s Reverse Midas touch continues:

An Indiana-based energy storage company that received a $118.5 million stimulus-law grant from the Energy Department filed for bankruptcy Thursday.

Ener1 is asking a federal bankruptcy court in New York to approve a plan to restructure the company’s debt and infuse $81 million in equity funding. …

The Energy Department, in 2009, approved a $118.5 million stimulus-law grant for EnerDel, a subsidiary of the company that develops lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles. The grant was part of a broader program aimed at promoting the development of electric-vehicle battery technology.

President Obama touted the program in his State of the Union address this year.

“In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries,” he said.

The company is now trading for $0.02 per share.  That’s our money, going down the crapper for more “green energy” boondoggles.

Please get this jack#ss out in November…we can’t afford four more years of this idiocy.

January 27, 2012 Posted by | big government, economic ignorance, energy, Obama | 3 Comments

President “Fair Share” not exactly holding his office to the same standards as his lofty rhetoric

Geez, what is it with the Obaminions skipping out on their taxes?  Did they all use Turbo Tax?  Details:

A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama’s executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes. These people working for Mr. Fair Share apparently haven’t paid any share, let alone their fair share.

Previous reports have shown how well-paid Obama’s White House staff is, with 457 aides pulling down more than $37 million last year. That’s up seven workers and nearly $4 million from the Bush administration’s last year.

Nearly one-third of Obama’s aides make more than $100,000 with 21 being paid the top White House salary of $172,200, each.

The IRS’ 2010 delinquent tax revelations come as part of a required annual agency report on federal employees’ tax compliance. Turns out, an awful lot of folks being paid by taxpayers are not paying their own income taxes.

Why, it’s as if the left has a “good enough for thee, but not for me” mentality or something!

January 26, 2012 Posted by | hypocrisy, Obama, taxes | 4 Comments

Warren Buffett and his secretary still misleading America

That poor woman!  She has to pay a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss!  Yeah, about that

Warren Buffet’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, served as a stage prop for President Obama’s State of the Union speech. She was the President’s chief display of the alleged unfairness of our tax system – a little person paying a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss.

Bosanek’s prominent role in Obama’s “fairness” campaign piqued my curiosity, and I imagine the curiosity of others. How much does her boss pay this downtrodden woman? So far, no one has volunteered this information.

Insofar as Buffet (like Mitt Romney) earns income primarily from capital gains, which are taxed at 15 percent (and according to Obama need to be raised for reasons of fairness), we need to determine how much income a taxpayer like Bosanek must earn in order to pay an average tax rate above fifteen percent. This is easy to do.

The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate of twelve percent. This is below Buffet’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffet must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand.

We must wait for further details to learn how much more than $200,000 she earns. The tax tables tell us about average ranges. For all we know she earns closer to a half million each year, but that is pure speculation.

Look, that meme has been tackled a billion times.  Buffett paid taxes on income, then used that after-tax income to invest…then had to pay taxes again, this time on money generated from his after-tax investments.  When your primary source of revenue is from profits resulting from investments made with after-tax income, your tax rate isn’t going to be the same. 

Capital gains tax rates are lower, and when they were cut during the 1990’s (reluctantly by Bubba), the stock market ROARED to life as investors flocked to it.  As a result of the new influx of investors and investor activity, revenues to the government increased after the capital gains tax rate cut.  Wait…you mean cutting taxes increased revenue to the federal government?  Yeah, go figure.  Turns out that decreasing certain tax rates promotes economic activity and increasing certain tax rates discourages economic activity.  Who knew, right?

So, Warren Buffett pays his secretary between $200-$500k a year in salary.  Good work if you can get it, I suppose.  So I’m thinking that maybe this “my billionaire boss pays a lower tax rate than I do” schtick is just a tad old…and disingenuous.  Besides, Warren Buffett is more than welcome to send more money to D.C., but he hires accountants and tax planners to avoid doing just that…all while complaining that he doesn’t pay enough.  My turbocharged Hypocrisy Tolerance fuel tank is on fumes, I’m afraid.

January 26, 2012 Posted by | economic ignorance, hypocrisy, taxes, Warren Buffett | 7 Comments

Andrea Mitchell on Tingles Matthews’ little-watched show: You know, Mitt’s ancestors were illegal aliens, right?

From Mrs. Greenspan’s cakehole:

ANDREA MITCHELL: And looking ahead to the next primary in Florida, 30 percent of the Hispanic community is Cuban-American. That’s a smaller proportion, and so the Hispanic community there is different. And they are less prone to be susceptible to Mitt Romney’s really hard line on immigration, more prone to the Newt Gingrich approach to immigration. The other interesting little fact is about the Mexican Romneys, those looking back at all of those records say that Mitt Romney should look back at the records because the Romneys that came back from Mexico to the United States, they crossed the border illegally.
That would be fascinating…except it’s not true.  Not a word of it.  Mutiple layers of fact-checking at the MSM, I see.  On the up side, it was on MSDNC…ergo nobody saw it.  😆
Nope…no liberal media bias!

January 23, 2012 Posted by | illegal immigration, media bias, MSNBC, Romney | 4 Comments

Obama promotes tourism by disrupting it


Hey, Mr. President! You’ve just destroyed the Keystone XL pipeline project and thousands of new union jobs. What are you gonna do now?

“I’m going to Disney World.”

No, it’s not another Obama vacation. He’s flying Air Force One down to Orlando this morning on business.

His people say the Democrat has some new ideas on how to increase tourism to Florida and probably the entire 57 states (Heh! – CL) . Naturally, this requires another Obama speech.

And what better place for a campaigning president to go lecture needlessly on improving tourism than the iconic institution that figured it all out decades ago, Walt Disney Resorts? 

But here’s the problem with Obama going to Disney’s Main Street: They have to halt all tourism there for him to be seen encouraging more tourism, close the whole place down to tourists for much of the day while he’s there and before. Even Disney employees are being barred.

Seems appropriate that he’s giving us his recipe for economic success in Fantasyland, no?  😆

January 20, 2012 Posted by | economic ignorance, irony, Obama, shameful | 3 Comments

Bain Capital contributed more money in last six years to Democrats

I look forward to the spin from the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) over this.

Democrats have accepted more political donations than Republicans from executives at Bain Capital, complicating the left’s plan to attack Mitt Romney for his record at the private equity firm.

The sums collected by Democrats from managing partners and other senior executives at Bain could hamper the Democratic message that Romney is a corporate raider who does not care about workers, charges based on his record as CEO of Bain.

Democrats could be forced to justify attacking Bain — which specializes in buying companies and boosting profitability, often by laying off workers — while accepting campaign funds from the same executives who made the cost-cutting decisions.

“They’re going to have a difficult time explaining why they’re padding their war chest with contributions from the same executives that they’re accusing of hurting jobs,” said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Right.  Because Democrats are loathe to be shameless hypocrites, right?

January 19, 2012 Posted by | economic ignorance, hypocrisy, Wall Street | 6 Comments

Newt takes down Juan Williams’ racebaiting question

Then again, Newt Gingrich calling Juan Williams by his first name is racist, or something.  So sayeth Tingles.

I’m not a big Newt fan, but dude, this one almost gave me a Matthews-like leg tingle.  As Rush points out, you would think that Williams, having been fired from NPR over saying something interpreted by NPR brass as politically incorrect and bigoted, would be loathe to whip out the race card himself.  Then again, you would think…and Williams clearly does not.

January 18, 2012 Posted by | bigotry, capitalism, Newt Gingrich | 6 Comments

John Edwards trial delayed due to “life-threatening” heart condition

This IS huge news!  I mean, I wasn’t aware that a “life-threatening” heart condition was possible if a person didn’t actually possess a heart.  Who knew?

January 17, 2012 Posted by | John Edwards | 3 Comments

Happy MLK Day!

Thank you, Dr. King, for your commitment to equal rights for all, irrespective of skin color or gender or whatever else.  Your legacy lives on, sir.

January 16, 2012 Posted by | non-political | Leave a comment

DNC Chair Debs: On Tuscon anniversary, let us be more civil, and by “us”, I mean the Tea Partiers, who are to blame for shooting

You gotta love ol’ Mayo Hair…or not.

Well, as someone who spent nineteen years as a member of a legislative body, I really agree with you, that we need to make sure that we tone things down, particularly in light of the Tucson tragedy from a year ago where my very good friend, Gabby Giffords, who is doing really well by the way, and I know everybody –[applause]–making tremendous progress.

The discourse in America, the discourse in Congress in particular, to answer your question, very specifically, has really changed.

And I’ll tell you, I hesitate to place blame, but I have noticed it take a very precipitous turn towards edginess and a lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.

Got that?  “We need to be civil and tone things down.  By the way, Tea Partiers practically pulled the trigger themselves.”  While that meme has been so thoroughly discredited that even most MSM fishwraps don’t go there anymore, that doesn’t keep this pointy-toothed demonspawn from politicizing something she swore she wouldn’t politicize.

Sums Verum Serum:

But the real question isn’t whether she explicitly (no) or implicitly (yes) blamed the Tea Party, that’s a dodge and the kind of thing Media Matters specializes in. The real question is this: What is the connection between political civility and the irrational actions of a diagnosed schizophrenic, i.e. Jared Loughner? Answer: There isn’t one. That’s why people like me are bent out of shape by Tucson being bandied about in this context.

Simply put, civility or lack thereof had nothing whatsoever to do with Tucson. That may not have been clear in the early days when hacks like Paul Krugman were stumbling all over themselves to lay blame at the feet of folks on the right, but it’s clear now. Given the facts, we’re not having any more of this nonsense from the left.

You know, it’s almost as if the left is a bunch of lying hacks with no moral compass whatsoever.  Almost, that is.

Exit question: Someone tell me again how many vermin-infested vandals, rapists, elderly assaulters, public defecators, etc., have been arrested at Tea Party rallies vs. Occupy gatherings?

January 12, 2012 Posted by | Arizona shooting, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, hypocrisy, shameful, Tea Party | 1 Comment

Big Sis now monitoring…Drudge?

Apparently, the threat of Chairman Zero not getting re-elected is a national security risk.  Details:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s command center routinely monitors dozens of popular websites, including Facebook, Twitter, Hulu, WikiLeaks and news and gossip sites including the Huffington Post and Drudge Report, according to a government document.

A “privacy compliance review” issued by DHS last November says that since at least June 2010, its national operations center has been operating a “Social Networking/Media Capability” which involves regular monitoring of “publicly available online forums, blogs, public websites and message boards.”

The purpose of the monitoring, says the government document, is to “collect information used in providing situational awareness and establishing a common operating picture.”

The document adds, using more plain language, that such monitoring is designed to help DHS and its numerous agencies, which include the U.S. Secret Service and Federal Emergency Management Agency, to manage government responses to such events as the 2010 earthquake and aftermath in Haiti and security and border control related to the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Oh, I see.  So they’re only checking out Drudge and other blogs so as to know about earthquakes and whatnot.  Because that kind of info isn’t on CNN or Fox News or anything, right?

November can’t get here quick enough to get these jackbooted thugs out of our house.

January 11, 2012 Posted by | big government, corruption, Janet Napolitano | 6 Comments

Where Newt and Perry are really screwing up the “Bain Capital” attacks on Romney

Rush does a better job explaining this than I would, slamming Newt Gingrich over this.  He hits Perry, too.

In short: any “conservative” citing a NYT article that blasts a capitalist and in a factually dishonest way sounds more like a liberal (and Rush has the audio of Obama proving the point) can forget my support.

January 11, 2012 Posted by | capitalism, economic ignorance, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Romney, Rush | 5 Comments

Ron Paul bolts from CNN reporter…again

Look, anytime CNN gets pimp-slapped, I grin like Obama reading Das Kapital.  But come on, man:

During a campaign stop here Monday morning, Mr. Paul’s staff abruptly cut off a brief interview with the CNN reporter Dana Bash when she asked about his ability to connect with voters in New Hampshire.

A top aide to Mr. Paul, Jesse Benton, could be seen — and heard — shouting at Ms. Bash as Mr. Paul walked away from Ms. Bash.

“This is junk,” Mr. Benton said. “We’re stopping.”

Ms. Bash, who was interviewing Mr. Paul a few feet away from a group of reporters, had posed a timely question: a few hours earlier, a middle-aged woman had become angry with Mr. Paul for not spending enough time talking to voters at a crowded diner in Manchester.

The woman, an Obama voter last time who said she was open to voting for Mr. Paul, even approached Mr. Paul’s S.U.V. as he prepared to drive off and began shouting at him through the closed car door to return to the diner and meet her and her mother.

Ms. Bash had asked Mr. Paul to talk about the episode, prompting Mr. Benton to intervene.

In an exchange captured on camera, Mr. Benton and Mr. Paul told Ms. Bash that it was the news media’s fault that he could not talk to more voters at the diner, because a gaggle of cameras had formed around the candidate in the narrow restaurant, restricting his movements.

“You the media did this to her,” Mr. Paul said of the woman in the diner. “She should have been furious with you.”

So it’s CNN’s fault that Paul took off instead of meeting with voters?

This is what gets me about the Paulistinians.  They whine about how their guy is getting a media boycott, and when the MSM finally does examine him and want to talk to him, he punks out…and naturally, the braindead Paulistinians support him when he does.  Paul could mow down a busload of special needs schoolchildren, and the Paulistinians would argue that the little snot-nosed neocon b#stards had it coming to them.

January 10, 2012 Posted by | CNN, Ron Paul | 1 Comment

Santorum…a Tea Party and fiscal conservative favorite?

I don’t see why.  “Big government conservative.”  Establishment Republican (who endorsed turncoat Arlen Specter) running against other establishment Republicans.

January 6, 2012 Posted by | pork, Rick Santorum, Tea Party | 2 Comments

King Obama: Screw the Constitution, I’m making recess appointments in direct violation of Article II Section II!

What is Article II Section II of the Constitution?

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Presidents from both parties have historically used recess appointments…when the Senate is in recess!  That’s kinda sorta, in a roundabout way, what a recess appointment is.

Well…the current Senate is not in recess.  Yet Chairman Zero says “I don’t care to see it that way”, and so he has intentionally violated the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.  Again.  The man-child rules by fiat.  He appointed his Consumer Financial Protection Bureau head, anti-business Richard Cordray, yesterday.  His justification?

The Senate has effectively been in recess for weeks, and is expected to remain in recess for weeks.

Um…it IS NOT in recess.  I missed the part in the Constitution where “effectively in recess” was located.  If someone could point me to that, I’d appreciate it.

He didn’t stop with Cordray, though.  He “recess” appointed three NLRB appointees, too.

Notes Leon Wolf:

Consider the astonishing timeline here – Obama submitted the names of his proposed appointments two weeks ago – two weeks ago – there has been no filibuster of the appointments; there hasn’t even been a cloture vote scheduled. The Senate hasn’t taken any action one way or another because there’s this holiday that happens in the last two weeks of December that some Americans celebrate, but Reid has kept the Senate in pro forma session, including regular meetings, to preserve the Senate’s prerogative to advise and consent on Obama’s nominees, as it is absolutely and beyond caveat the Senate’s prerogative to do. Thus, despite the fact that the Senate isn’t even dragging its feet on these appointments, and despite the fact that the Senate has been adamant that it is not in recess, Obama has arrogated to himself the power to declare the Senate in recess for them and short circuit the entire Constitutional process for Senate confirmation of Constitutional officers.

In other words, Reid allowed this Senate to be in a pro forma session.

So then Harry Reid, the man who said in 2007 that he was keeping the Senate in a pro forma session to prevent Bush’s recess appointments (and Bush respected the Constitution enough not to fight Reid), definitely has a problem with what B.O. is doing now, right?

Yeah, right:

“I support President Obama’s decision,” he [Reid] said in a statement.

Obama just made Reid and the other Senate Democrats his b#tch, and Reid is totally cool with that.  Of course, he’s been polishing B.O.’s putz for three years, so why stop now?

ObaMao is doing this for two reasons: (1) He has nothing but contempt for the Constitution; (2) he wants a fight with Republicans in Congress in an election year.  You know, so he can run on “Those evil Republicans are wanting to screw consumers in favor of big business, and they’re trying to use a ‘legal technicality’!”  The MSM will, naturally, carry his water, ignoring all Constitutional constraints.

Is this really the road Democrats want to take?  Next year, Republicans will control the Senate, and likely the White House.  So the Dems want to use this club over Republican heads for less than a year while opening up the door for 4+ years of Republicans doing the same thing to them?  Really?

January 5, 2012 Posted by | Constitution, corruption, Obama, shameful | 6 Comments

Hopenchange: 2011 closes with debt-to-GDP ratio OVER 100%

Boy, Obamanomics sure is working, huh?  Details:

While not news to Zero Hedge readers who knew about the final debt settlement of US debt about 10 days ahead of schedule, it is now official: according to the US Treasury, America has closed the books on 2011 with debt at an all time record $15,222,940,045,451.09. And, as was observed here first in all of the press, US debt to GDP is now officially over 100%, or 100.3% to be specific, a fact which the US government decided to delay exposing until the very end of the calendar year. We wonder, rhetorically, just how prominent of a talking point this historic event will be in any upcoming GOP primary debates. And yes, technically this number is greater than the debt ceiling but it excludes various accounting gimmicks. When accounting for those, the US has a debt ceiling buffer of… $14 billion, or one third the size of a typical bond auction.

Everything this economic ignoramus touches turns to crap.  But hey, he is sure is smoov talkin’ wit da Telebinky, so let’s allow him to “finish the job” (his words) of destroying the America he loathes.

January 4, 2012 Posted by | big government, economic ignorance, Obama | 1 Comment

MSNBC’s Maddow: You know who’s totally unbiased? We are!

Early morning beverage warning, because that Maddow dude “gal” is really huffing some primo fumes.  Quote:

“Yeah. That’s exactly right. We are not, we, there may be liberals on TV at MSNBC, but the network is not operating with a political objective. Whereas Fox is operating with a political objective to elect Republican candidates, and particularly, to elect Republican candidates Roger Ailes likes. I think Roger Ailes is a really good TV executive, but their operation is essentially a political operation to elect Republicans.”

As Ace says about Maddow (and this warrants a beverage warning, too):

I’ll have what she’s having (vagina).

Heh.  😆

I don’t even know if both of Maddow’s viewers at MSDNC believe that.

January 3, 2012 Posted by | Fox News, media bias, MSNBC | 5 Comments

MSM: If only Congress hadn’t authorized civilians to carry guns into national parks, that crazed gunman that shot four people at a party wouldn’t have killed a park ranger

I’ll never understand the logic, or lack thereof, of liberals when it comes to gun control.  Let’s set the background:

Mount Rainier National Park remained closed Tuesday following the discovery of the body of the suspected gunman in the fatal shooting of a park ranger that has devastated the close-knit group of park workers.

The park, which sees more than 1.5 million visitors annually, has been off-limits since Margaret Anderson was killed Sunday morning. The body of the man suspected of killing her was found Monday morning by a plane searching the rugged, snowy area.

“We have been through a horrific experience,” said park superintendent Randy King. “We’re going to need a little time to regroup.”

Benjamin Colton Barnes, 24, was lying partially submerged in a frigid mountain creek with snow banks standing several feet high on each side.

Authorities think Barnes fled to the park Sunday to hide after an early morning shooting at a New Year’s house party near Seattle that wounded four, two critically.

King County Sheriff’s spokeswoman Sgt. Cindi West said Barnes is a suspect in that shooting, as well. West said the shots were fired around 3 a.m. after a dispute over a gun. However, further details, including the vicitms’ identities, were not immediately available.

Parks spokesman Kevin Bacher said: “The speculation is that he may have come up here, specifically for that reason, to get away. The speculation is he threw some stuff in the car and headed up here to hide out.” 

So a crazed gunman (Barnes) shoots four people at a New Years Eve party, then flees to Mt. Rainier National Park and kills a park ranger who was part of a roadblock.  How does the MSM treat this?  Predictably:

The shooting renewed debate about a federal law that made it legal to take loaded weapons into national parks. The 2010 law made possession of firearms subject to state gun laws.

Bill Wade, the outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said Congress should be regretting its decision.

“The many congressmen and senators that voted for the legislation that allowed loaded weapons to be brought into the parks ought to be feeling pretty bad right now,” Wade said.

So let me get this straight:

A mentally disturbed man who didn’t care about gun laws (or any laws) shoots four people at a party, critically wounding two of them.  This same lawbreaker retreats to the wilderness to hide out, and when he is stopped by a park ranger, he ignored the law again (you know, the law about killing people and stuff?) and shot and killed the park ranger.  But had Congress not authorized law-abiding citizens to carry firearms into national parks to defend themselves against bears and mountain lions, this otherwise lawbreaking gunman would have…um…not taken his gun to the national park on account of it being illegal to do so?  Because he would have gotten in big trouble for breaking a gun law, as opposed to commiting homicide?  And that fear would have made a mentally ill gunman reconsider his actions?

Got it.  Thanks for the clarification.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

January 3, 2012 Posted by | gun rights, media bias, Seattle | 3 Comments