The only “work” stimulated for non-government union employees by President Obama’s 2009 “stimulus” bill was for U-Haul to move adult children’s furniture back to their parents’ homes.
Obamacare will force children lucky enough to have full-time jobs to rent Ryder trucks to transport mom and dad’s stuff to their abodes. Maybe President Barack Obama would consider issuing an executive order allowing adults to stay on their children’s employer-mandated insurance until a death panel deems them no longer insurable by Obamacare standards?
Full disclosure, when I was a young child in the early 1970s, my great-grandmother permanently resided with my maternal grandmother and my great aunt frequently resided Continue reading
If only Democrats celebrated non-government, non-union and non-Obama-crony labor on non-Labor Days.
Five Labor Days after the housing bubble burst in the Fall of 2008 and Democrats’ February 2009 passage of President Barack Hussein Obama’s signature American Recovery and Reinvestment (“stimulus”) Act, less Americans hold jobs this Labor Day than were employed when he was first inaugurated at Noon, January 20, 2009. Long-term unemployment remains the highest since WWII, U-6 underemployment rates remain at Great Depression era levels and the highest percentage of jobs today are part-time than at any time in U.S. history. Continue reading
Civil rights hero and long-time Democrat elected to represent the City of Atlanta in the U.S. House, Rep. John Lewis says he is “still” Marching on Washington, 50 years later. On Wednesday’s 50th anniversary, the first African-American President of the United States will commemorate the historic event with remarks from the same spot at the Lincoln Memorial where black baptist Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.
But the District of Columbia and nation President Obama will look out upon on August 18, 2013 bears no resemblance to the “Southern” city of Washington and country MLK addressed five decades ago.
In South Carolina, the great-grandchildren of the authors of secession and Fort Sumter (including their Democrat Governor Ernest Hollings) had only recently raised the Confederate battle flag atop its State House to protest school desegregation orders issued by federal courts. But after King’s speech inspired Democrat President Lyndon Johnson to give up his previous opposition and join Republicans in Congress to pass the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, de jure racial discrimination by government against blacks eventually came to an end. Continue reading
I speak, of course, of President Barack Obama, his rapper and most leaders of the modern Democratic Party.
He seems to have a thing about killing police.
Common has written one “poem” in which he talks about carrying weapons to use against police warning, “They watching me, I’m watching them.”
He has written material lauding Assata Shakur, a Black Panther who was involved in a shootout that killed a New Jersey state trooper. After escaping from jail, she now lives in Cuba. He named his daughter after her.
And he has lauded Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted of killing a Philadelphia police officer.
And what’s more, Common has spoken out against mixed marriage – something you would think would get the attention of President Obama. He has made anti-gay remarks and suggested he’d like to “burn a Bush,” a double entendre, the awful half of which appears to suggest killing George W. Bush.
So, how is the anti-Bush, anti-McCain, anti-Palin, brilliant Hope and Change agent working out for you, even since bin Laden died?
Has your, now 3-year’s dead, wallet yet been stimulated enough to motivate grooving to hip-hop, cop killer-praising “poetry” at the White House with Common’s fellow Trinity United-in-hatred of GD-KKK-Hate America Church, 20-year presidential and First Lady pew-parked butt parishioners? Yes, Common heard and loved the sermons that Obama claims not to have heard when his butt was parked there with Michelle for 20 years!
Today’s Democratic Party is not the party of JFK. It’s not even the party of the first Democrat Andrew Jackson.
After all, wouldn’t we prefer anti-Federal Bank so-called “white trash” to an anti-Boeing-plant-in-South Carolina holder of a Hawaiian long-form birth certificate, whose greatest claim to fame is that he waited nine months to let the Navy take out a terrorist who was o-for-the-last-nine years?
I’m sure it had been over a year since I had heard anyone blame Bush for the economy, and even longer since I had heard anyone defend President Barack Obama on anything at my local pub.
Yet, I heard both uttered by a heretofore mostly silent-on-politics friend there yesterday, soon after I had sought refuge from false moral equivalence allegations between German and other United Nations Security Council abstentions on Libya and the past behavior of a certain nation I call home, made in my Stone Mountain of Georgia home.
Admittedly, the then-sparse number of early afternoon occupants of nearby bar stools and I were in the middle of a group denunciation of all things Obama when the former erupted, but I was still a bit shocked given the source, the occasion of March Madness on the big screen TV and my known reputation as a rabid right-wing conservative. It was too much liberalism for me to take this particular weekend, so I went home immediately after summarily denouncing the untimely pronouncements.
In transit, I realized that what was so striking about the Blame Bush and Praise Obama statements is how rare it is to hear them even in an Atlanta Metro Area venue (DeKalb County is represented in Congress by Democrat Hank Johnson after Radical Cynthia McKinney represented the county for many terms previous) that is regularly populated by a goodly number of liberals, Democrats and mushy moderates. In fact, I can’t ever remember hearing anyone claim that “things have turned around” on the economy since the jobs recession began even before the bursting of the housing bubble and resulting financial crisis in 2008.
Apparently, the President of the United States is afraid of him. While the “I won” comment is making its rounds across the blogosphere to the rest of the world, there was more than that to the story.
President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.
“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
Has anyone pointed out to the President that Rush Limbaugh is a talk show host? To have the most powerful man in the nation afraid of him might make some people feel pretty good but I have a feeling that Rush will find it hilariously immature.
Did I mention Limbaugh’s a talk show host? It’s his job to do what he does. That’s what he gets paid to do. If people are listening to him, it must be because he has something to say worth listening to. Perhaps if the President were less concerned with trashing the dignity of the office to which he were elected and listened to some Rush himself, he wouldn’t be using such immature comments in strong-arm Chicago-thug style tactics to get his way.
Did I mention Rush Limbaugh is a talk show host? I’m sure I have. Aside from the fact that he’s usually right and revels in being right, he’s paid really to entertain us, which he does admirably. The humor makes the bitter pill of reality goes down easier.
Kind of reminds me of that line in “Indpendence Day” when Connie was reading the papers with bad press against the President, played by Bill Pullman, when she read, “… needed a warrior but elected a boy.” The similarity ends there, however, because we have elected a boy, whereas Pullman showed the right stuff, via acting, when it was necessary.
One hopes that the boy matures quickly or it’s going to be a very rough four years. He needs to start with refreshing his memory on the actual meaning of bipartisanship. Such would not include descriptors indicating fear of a TALK SHOW HOST or the words, “I won.” Bipartisanship would include reasoned and respectful debate on differences to reach a compromise, something the Democrats never gave Bush for his entire eight years but expect as their due because “they won.”
Sore losers, poorer winners. Indeed, it seems as if the Democrats in majority are bent on retribution and vengeance for their previous losses than working for the good of the nation. Okay, if that’s the way they want to use their power, that’s what they can do, but any Republican with an ounce of self-respect will not be on board with it. Don’t give them an out to blame Republicans for their failures. Make the Democrats own their legislation in every way.
From a comic strip came this great pearl of wisdom: “With great power comes great responsibility.” Comic… strip… Get it? It’s time the Democrats took responsibility for their agenda rather than finding willing scapegoats upon which to place the blame for failures.
Between comic strips and talk show hosts, one wonders how anyone is expected to take the Democrats seriously.
From Russia comes a teaching moment. In this article a leading Russian political analyst has predicted that the United States will break up and further expounds that it will break into six pieces. He blames this on the financial crisis that has been building since at least 1998. Whether he is right or wrong, I can’t say because I’m not an economist, but it is worrisome.
That, in and of itself, is bad enough but there was something else, somewhat overlooked while all are focusing on the prediction.
He even suggested that “we could claim Alaska – it was only granted on lease, after all.” Panarin, 60, is a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and has authored several books on information warfare.
Okay, you’re asking, what’s so teaching about that? Well… Russia is salivating over the possible demise of the United States due to a breakup of the union that has held us together for over 2 centuries because it will give them an opportunity to reclaim something that was once worthless to them but now has a lot of value. The oil that the U.S. government refuses to consider comes to mind but that’s neither here nor there for the purposes of this article.
The lesson is in noting how Russia bartered Alaska to gain something for itself and the U.S. wanted Alaska for its own reasons. We do this every day in our own lives when we purchase goods and services from corporations, companies, and small businesses. We make the decision whether to surrender our hard earned cash for those goods and services that we want them badly enough to give up the money for them.
How different is the regret Russia feels over having sold Alaska so cheaply in the past only to discover that it had more value than it ever imagined and the individual regret of all the money spent on the latest gadgets, bigger cars and houses, and so on? Russia wants to reclaim Alaska. They don’t want to pay for it because they don’t want to have to return the money that was given to them in exchange. Nor do they want to pay for its real worth now in terms of development of resources.
Those corporations, companies, and small businesses are thriving while the individual has practically bankrupted himself for those “got to haves.” But the individual doesn’t want to face the fact that he is the one who surrendered something of real value for something that had fleeting worth so he looks to the government to reclaim his money but he can’t do that without being considered a thief so he comes up with a great term and rationalization: wealth redistribution. The individual wants his money back but he doesn’t want to return the goods and services he purchased and he certainly doesn’t want to return them is the same or better condition than they were when he purchased them.
Two sides of the same coin.
While Alaska might be considered a big something and wealth redistribution, in comparison, might seem a small something, right or wrong is not distinguished by the size of the thing being discussed in such a manner.
Consider this a Thanksgiving open thread.
China is using cyberwarfare to challenge American power and distorting economic policy to exert political influence over other countries, according to a hostile congressional report. [Read the rest.]
Somehow, I knew China was going to be a big problem. I’ve blogged about China before but mostly about the free trade stuff. China got a whole lot of technology given to it (From Salon, even, a leftwing mag-rag). That’s one of the problems with niavete in the Oval Office. Clinton has a lot to answer for now that China is using its muscles to overwhelm other countries, not only economically but militarily, well, it’s kind of rough to imagine they have friendly intentions toward the country that enabled their technological advancement.
Now, China is handing off that same technology to countries that wish us harm, not just ill. And we sit here virtually helpless against them. Bush isn’t going to do anything. If he was, he would have already done it. Obama? Fat chance.
About the only hope we have is in national security developing counter-measures. It should know what the Chinese have. If it were me, I’d assume they have everything we’ve got and start from there. Unfortunately, it, too, is under the thumb of the president.