All liberals want people to be taxed more. That is, of course, except them. Liberals love to discuss raising tax rates and forcing more people to pay more of their hard earned cash to the government so that the government can take that money and waste it on programs that support liberals. Welfare, bailouts, union payoffs, all done with tax dollars to keep the liberal base down and dependent on government while forcing others to pay.

Even very wealthy liberals say that the wealthy should pay more in taxes. Bill Clinton says he should be paying more, Michael Moore thinks the wealthy should be paying more and Warren Buffett says the wealthy should be paying more. Buffett is so revered in the Obama regime that a new tax plan is named after him. It matters not that the new tax is based upon a lie (that Buffett pays less in taxes than his secretary) what matters is that the man is advocating more taxes for the rich.

He and other rich liberals like to discuss raising taxes because they do not pay their taxes. John Kerry wants more taxes but docks his yacht in another state to avoid taxes. Charlie Rangel finds ways (mostly illegal ones) to avoid paying taxes. Buffett is no different. Last year Buffett made $62,955,038, making him very rich, but instead of paying his fair share Buffett has been fighting with the IRS for ten years to avoid paying about ONE BILLION dollars in taxes.

Mr. I need to pay more in taxes is fighting the IRS to avoid paying taxes. All liberals who advocate higher taxes (but only on the rich as we define them at any given moment) work very, very hard to avoid paying their own taxes.

Buffett is not different and neither are all the mush brained morons from Hollywood who claim they need to pay more. All of these rich people employ accountants to ensure they pay the IRS as little as possible. Here is a great summation of Buffett’s hypocrisy:

On top of this tax bill, figure the value of the time IRS agents have invested trying to collect it – they don’t work cheap, and we pay their salaries – and the resources Buffett’s people have invested fighting back. All of which would have been saved if Buffett simply practiced what he preached, and willingly handed over his fortune to the brilliant and compassionate “leaders” he commands the rest of us to support without resistance. Human Events

Buffett did not practice what he preaches for the same reason all liberals do not practice what they preach; because they believe the rules do not apply to them.

Buffett is no different…

Do as I say and not as I do, the mantra of the liberal left.

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky was interviewed on WLS Radio and she said that we do not deserve to keep all of our money because government is those things we decide to do together. She then talked about national security, police, and firefighters. She did not mention those things government decided that had no togetherness to them such as the many social welfare programs. She failed to mention Social Security and how it was enacted and mismanaged.

First of all, government is not those things we decide to do together. Government in this country is the collection of folks We the People have sent to represent us. Government does not decide together with us what we want to do. Government is limited in its power by the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land. Neither government nor the people, (alone or together) have the authority to do as we please. We have a Constitution that says what the people allow government to do and government is not allowed to work outside of those rules. If we want to change things there is a mechanism to do just that.

Second of all, who is this Congresswoman to decide whether or not we deserve to keep OUR money? What gives her or any other politician the right to tell us how much of OUR property we are allowed to keep? The reality is government does not deserve to have any of our money and only gets it under the authority we allow it.

I know that this woman is one of the typical liberal/Socialists who thinks that it is OK to confiscate property from citizens. She believes that it is perfectly OK so much so that she will decide what you DESERVE to keep.

Here is something that is true. Schakowsky does not deserve to keep here seat in Congress and the Constitution allows the people she represents to decide that issue.

You see Congresswoman, WE get to decide what you deserve (and you do not merit your seat) but you do not have that luxury with regard to us.

Having the authority to tax us (that we gave you) gives you NO authority to decide how much of our property we are worthy of keeping.

Our Founders would be shooting by now…

Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

Leave it to the ever increasingly irrelevant Maureen Dowd of The New York Times to write a piece that is nothing more than mindless prattle. Ms. Dowd is a frustrated old maid who has trouble seeing the real America from high atop her ivory tower. She is a liberal and loves to extol the virtues of liberalism while berating anyone who is not in line with her thinking.

All well and good but at least this shrew could demonstrate some professionalism. She is, after all, supposed to be a journalist.

Case in point. Dowd has a new article this weekend at the NYT (you find it, no linky love here). In it she discusses all the Republican women and how mean they are. She mischaracterizes the Arizona immigration law while taking a shot at the mean ole meanie Jan Brewer. Yes, to Dowd, Brewer is mean because she was elected to protect the citizens of Arizona and that is what she is doing. And Dowd does not stop at Brewer. She also has it in for Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and a handful of other conservative women.

Dowd is upset with these strong women and describes them as mean simply because they are out playing hardball in the field of politics. There was once a time when women like Dowd fought for the rights of all women and told us that women are just as tough as men. Now it seems that sentiment is only reserved for liberal women. Conservative women who are in the game are mean. Sharron Angle tells Harry Reid to man up and she is a horrible, mean woman.

Has Dowd ever called Hillary Clinton such things? Clinton uses the F word more than a platoon of special forces soldiers and has been known to throw a few things in the White House (confirmed by a Secret Service acquaintance) and Dowd ignores her meanness.

No, she has to reserve her disgust for the conservative women who are supposed to act like June Cleaver while the MSM, the political pundits, and their opponents ravage them. Can anyone honestly say that Sarah Palin got a fair shake and was treated with respect? Hell no, she was attacked, her family was attacked, and the left treated her like a bastard at a family reunion.

I think Dowd herself has had a few nasty things to say about some or all of the women she mentions but she conveniently ignores that while excoriating them for being mean.

Dowd’s writing is acerbic and it has been said that she is writing to her mother. Seems to me her mother should straighten that girl out. Perhaps a note like, hey Maureen, for goodness sake will you finally get yourself a man who will treat you like a cheap gong so you won’t feel so testy anymore.

Either that or she needs to see Doc Johnson and buy an aid.

We are not going to cure Dowd’s mental issues here so let’s move on.

She claims conservative women are mean. I guess this has something to do with the fact that many of them are WINNING and beating the pants off her liberal buddies. Yes, when conservatives win it is a mean thing, boo hoo.

I also cannot discount the bit of jealousy that must be at play here. Dowd is not too terribly famous and is a boor. She is a has been who has never wielded power.

It has to eat her up that conservative women have better name recognition and are contributing much more to society.

Don’t worry Maureen, your articles provide great value to millions of bird owners and guys who run the fish markets.

I guess Maureen has a right to be mad. The women she hates are influencing politics and the direction of this country. Some of them are beating Dowd’s candidates like they are red headed step children.

And that can’t sit too well with the Queen of boor.

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

It has been reported that Obama adviser and actor Kal Penn (Kalpen Suresh Modi) was robbed at gunpoint in Washington DC near Dupont Circle sometime after midnight. Penn, who starred in House and the Harold and Kumar movies has obviously staged this to gain attention as he intends to leave DC and resume his acting career in a new Harold and Kumar Christmas movie.

Penn reports that the gunman got his wallet, cell phones, and other belongings but this must be fabricated.

Washington DC has a gun ban so a person with a gun could not have robbed him. Gun control laws, we are told, work so this could not have happened. If he wanted to be believed he should have left the part about the gun out. Everyone knows that people do not carry guns in DC. If they did Penn might have had a chance against the supposed gunman. Then again, maybe not. Liberals don’t carry guns, they negotiate…

Interestingly, there was a rally consisting of a bunch of gun owners who showed up near DC (in Virginia where carrying guns is legal) and despite all those loaded weapons and “angry” people, not a single shot was fired.

Penn is obviously well off so if this happened maybe he should not look at it as a robbery. He should look at it as the manifestation of his political beliefs. It was redistribution of wealth. The person who allegedly robbed him had less money so he just leveled the playing field.

The only difference between what happened to Penn and what happens to the rest of us is that the IRS does not use guns to steal our money and they do it in broad daylight.

Source:
Yahoo News

Never surrender, never submit.

Barney Frank agrees with Evan Bayh that the climate in the Congress is not operating as it should and that there is too much partisanship. Frank thinks it would be better if Senator Bayh stays on and helps to end the filibuster, a procedure that allows bills to be stalled or killed.

Both parties have used the filibuster and both have threatened to kill it in order to pass their agendas. The filibuster is only good when one is in the minority and bad when one is in the majority. Minorities love using it.

The filibuster is a thorn in the side of the majority because invoking it requires a 3/5 (60 vote) cloture to end it. This means that each time the filibuster is used it requires more than a simple majority to get things passed.

The Constitution describes a quorum as a majority of a particular chamber present. This suggests that a majority is all that is needed to conduct business and to get things done. However, the Constitution also allows each chamber to make its own rules and the rules of the Senate allow for the filibuster and requires 3/5 to end it. They can change those rules but that would require 2/3 (67 votes) to vote for the change. It is unlikely that the Senate could get 67 people to vote on ending the filibuster as a rule change.

If Democrats were to succeed then it is likely they would ask for the filibuster in the future and would want a rule change to get it. Remember, the minority party loves the filibuster. If they could get 67 votes they might get satisfaction now but regret it later when a Republican Congress and President could do what it wanted with no opposition from Democrats.

Another option is the Nuclear or Constitutional option. This is a procedure where the filibuster is declared unconstitutional and then must be voted on. In order to pass, a simple majority of 51 votes is needed. In other words, the Democrats could declare the filibuster unconstitutional and then use 51 votes to end it (Republicans do not have enough votes to stop it).

This is what Bill Frist threatened to do when Bush nominees were being denied an up or down vote. The Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate if Frist invoked the nuclear option. The filibuster was obviously important to them at that time and they were willing to shut down the Senate to keep it.

I am not sure how they could have shut down the Senate but one would have to assume the Republicans could do the same thing.

If the Democrats declare the filibuster unconstitutional then it would likely be lost forever. How could any Congress later state that it was not unconstitutional after all? Of course, how can they declare it unconstitutional when they have been using it since the mid 1800s?

As for Barney Frank, he is not part of the Senate so his input really matters little since he cannot vote on the Matter. Besides, he has been one of the most partisan people in Congress.

His idea of partisanship is when Republicans do what the Democrats want. Frank has little concern for the ideas of the other side.

I did not like Ted Kennedy but he knew how to broker a deal and to reach across the aisle on occasion. He worked with Republicans and Republicans worked with him to get legislation passed.

Was it always good legislation? No but they did work together.

We do not need to end the filibuster, we need to end the tenure of the people in Congress. It is time to sweep out the people who have been there for way too long.

In the last election the youth of America embraced Barack Obama as young and in tune. They discounted McCain, in part, because of his age and length of service.

It is time they did the same to the people in Congress by embracing younger people who are not career politicians.

Most Americans are not far left or far right. I am conservative on some things and moderate on others. Adam and Darrel, who comment here, are liberal on some things and moderate on others. We can have the debates about policy and what we think is good for America and we can either agree or agree to disagree. In the end we have more in common than not though we differ on how to get to where we need to be as a country (and where we need to be). One thing is certain though, we cannot get anywhere as long as we allow people to take up residence in DC and have decades long careers. We need fresh blood.

Vote for the new person in the primary and then let the parties fight it out in the general election. Let us show them who they work for and let us hold them accountable.

I will not vote for any incumbent in November. I urge everyone else to do the same.

Sources:
CBS News
Breitbart

William Daley wrote an Op-Ed piece for the Washington Post and in it he tells Obama that the decision of some Democrats to retire rather than run for reelection as well as the defection of Parker Griffith spells trouble for the left going into next year’s election. Daley’s suggestion is that Democrats plot a more moderate and centrist course.

Daley laments that many Democrats won seats in traditional Republican strongholds because they are moderates, or Blue Dogs as they are called, and that they risk losing because they have had to support the more radical elements of the party in Congress. Anyone with a little political sense knows that Pelosi will try to protect the moderates by allowing them to vote against unpopular legislation as long as she has the votes for it to pass. However, when push comes to shove and she needs the votes she expects them to vote lockstep with the party.

This sets up problems and shows why there is no such thing as a true Blue Dog. When it gets down to brass tacks the so called Blue Dogs vote party over conscience. It might take a good bribe but it always happens. It is very unlikely that the citizens in the traditional Republican strongholds who are now represented by Democrats want the health care bill, cap and trade or the stimulus but in many cases they have representatives who support those items.

Daley’s solution is for the Democrats to put up a moderate and centrist front but this is all smoke and mirrors. How many people believe that any of these people who get reelected acting as moderates will actually be moderate when votes are needed and the leadership is applying pressure? Barack Obama ran as a person who would be transparent, ethical, moderate and bipartisan. In essence, he appeared to be rather moderate. This fooled a lot of people who failed to pay attention to his radical past. Now we are seeing him as the far left radical, Chicago politician that some of us saw despite the whole hope and change mantra.

If the left moves to the center and works as moderates many of them might be reelected by those with short memories but make no mistake, they will not remain moderate after they are elected. You folks in conservative America need to look at the Democrats representing you and see if they truly stayed moderate after they won or if they fell in line behind the radical liberal agenda. Don’t be fooled by those who vote for something and then against it when the votes are secured. Don’t be fooled by those who are allowed to vote a certain way under the cover provided by Pelosi. You need to actually look at them and what they are doing. If they voted for the things you do not want and did so under pressure then they are playing a game and it is not likely they will change should they win reelection.

When it comes down to it the so called Blue Dogs vote party over constituent and party over country so keep this in mind should they run around begging for your vote and your money while telling you how they had your best interests at heart.

Daley wants the Democrats to put on a ruse in order to avoid a real problem in the next election. His plea for Obama to take on a centrist agenda has nothing to do with really being centrist or running the country as a centrist. It is a political ploy designed to keep Democrats in power so that once the election is over they can continue the radical agenda set forth by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

Vote them all out and put people in who will be concerned with your interests and not the interests of the party.

And if that person turns out to be bad replace him as well.

We The People own this country and it is time we started acting like it.

Now, in all fairness, he probably doesn’t know that he is as hypocritical as he is- number one, it is his innate sense of entitlement that makes him oblivious to hypocrisy- after all, he is a Kennedy, therefore he is better than us mere mortals.

Number two, even though the brain cancer that has taken half of his brain has probably made him smarter in some respects, being a Kennedy is a different life- form- indeed, he might actually begin to make sense after the rest of his brain is eaten by the cancer. He certainly isn’t making sense now.

Back in 2004, when Herman Munster- uh, John Kerry (sorry, I get those mixed up ALL the time) was running for President, Teddy boy had the law changed in Massachusetts that would replace Herman Munster-(damn, not again) John Kerry in the Senate- the thinking being that the Dems did not want Republican Mitt Romney replacing Kerry with a Republican pick, so Teddy had the law changed from a Governmental appointment to a special election.

Now that the seat that may be vacated is his, Teddie wants a do- over.

 For nearly half a century, Sen. Edward Kennedy has guarded his family’s political legacy. Stricken with cancer and as Congress takes up his signature issue, he is tending to his own.

Kennedy asked Massachusetts lawmakers to change state law to give Gov. Deval Patrick, a fellow Democrat and supporter of President Barack Obama, the ability to appoint an interim replacement to Kennedy’s seat should Kennedy be unable to continue serving.

Under state law, an election is required within 145-160 days after a Senate seat becomes vacant. That would temporarily leaveMassachusetts without a voice in the Senate — and Senate Democrats potentially one vote short on any health care overhaul legislation.

Kennedy said he supports the special election process, but wants to ensure the seat is filled during the course of the election.

news.yahoo.com

Oh yeah, I am sure that Teddye boy really cares about the process- that is why he is always changing it to suit his idea of the day here. The man never cared about fair- that has been evident since Mary Jo- he is just trying to ensure that “healthscare” doesn’t die with him. Personally, I would like to be the one that whispers in his ear, as he takes his last breath, “The bill failed, Ted- now go have a talk with God and Mary Jo- they have been waiting.”

Still, even the Dems in the state are somewhat reluctant to be changing laws every four years like a Banana Republic- that doesn’t bother Teddy, but then he has HALF a brain- (you see, even the village idiot can serve).

“We have great respect for the senator and what he continues to do for our commonwealth and our nation. It is our hope that he will continue to be a voice for the people of Massachusetts as long as he is able,” they said in a joint statement.

The state last changed its succession law in 2004 to require the special election. Before that the governor was allowed to name a successor. At the time, Democrats were worried that then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney would be able to fill any vacancy created if Democratic Sen. John Kerry was elected president.

Republican House Leader Brad Jones said he proposed virtually the same idea in 2004 as Kennedy is proposing now — which would have allowed Romney to name someone to fill the seat on an interim basis — but it was overwhelmingly rejected by Democrats.

“If this is going to move forward, people are going to have to explain what’s changed between then and now,” said Jones, of North Reading.

news.yahoo.com

Now, I am aware that some people actually believe that Teddie is an OK guy- I am not one of them- just as people are outraged at the Lockerbie bomber being freed, despite never admitting guilt, I see no difference between Teddye and this other waste of space- the ONLY difference being the number of people killed. There has never been an admission of guilt, an apology, or ANY type of penance. 

In my world, he would have never been eligible to run for the Senate, much less serve as long as he has. Now he wants to change the rules so the seat can stay a Democratic seat- probably for some Kennnedy-to-be-named-later. What arrogance.

This healthscare bill needs to be defeated while he is still alive, so we can all “feel his pain” before he dies.

And then a Republican needs to sit in his seat.

After the seat is exorcised.

I recently wrote about my Congressman, Frank Kratovil of Maryland’s First District. He is an alleged Blue Dog Democrat and he won the traditionally Republican District by a small margin thanks to the large amount of money infused by the Obama special interest groups and the endorsement of former MD 1 Congressman Wayne Gilchrest. This RINO endorsed Kratovil because he was upset that he lost the primary to a Republican who actually IS conservative. I don’t think Kratovil will be in his seat for long but I do know that he will hasten his exit by supporting the liberal/socialist positions of Obama.

I wrote of Kratovil’s lie. I called his office and his staffer assured me that Kratovil had not taken a position on the health care bill. He already voted for Cap and Trade so it is obvious he is not a Blue Dog but a lap dog. After I spoke with his staffer the “uncommitted” congressman was out hawking for Obama and his health care plan. Kratovil had indeed taken a position and it was contrary to the one held by the majority of his constituents.

My reminder to the staffer that Kratovil won by a small margin must have made it back to him. I am sure he has also received quite a few reminders of this by others in his district.

FT.com is reporting that several first term congressmen are reconsidering their positions.

Frank Kratovil and Tom Perriello, who as freshmen congressmen would be expected to back the party leadership, both say proposals for expanding coverage to the uninsured are un­acceptable in their current form and should focus more on cost savings.

Mr Kratovil, who was hanged in effigy by a healthcare protester at a town hall meeting in his state of Maryland, said he would have voted against legislation if it had come to a vote last month.

Kratovil NOW says that he would have voted against the bill in its current form so why was he out hawking for Obama? Why was he trying to sell the boondoggle to his constituents when he held his town hall meeting? Now that he has heard from his constituents he is singing a different song. That is good because he should be listening but make no mistake, he is all for the Obama agenda but he is also worried about being reelected. In the final analysis he knows that his constituents are the people who will put him back in office, not Obama and the party mob bosses.

Losing elections is why the Democrats want to have Republicans on board for this. If they can get Republicans to vote for it they can allow their vulnerable members (like Kratovil) to vote against it and be able to tout his Blue Dog credentials. No Republican should vote for this. Force the Democrats to pass this without any Republican support and force people like Kratovil to choose between his party and his constituents. We cannot give these people an easy way out of the mess they created.

I will be holding Kratovil accountable for his votes and right now he is in trouble for his vote for cap and trade. I worked very hard to get rid of Gilchrest and I will do the same to get rid of Kratovil.

We must get rid of all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC.

Anyone that votes for these socialistic programs is a domestic enemy. Kratovil is in good company with all the enemies of the state in the Obama administration including the chief thug Obamadinejad.

Kratovil had better straighten up and fly right. He needs to remember who he works for and he better do what we want. Gilchrest played games and lost his job. Kratovil will go a lot faster in the conservative First District of Maryland.

Teddy Kennedy, the famous drowner of women and the Binge Drinker of Hyannisport, still wants to see health care reform before he dies from brain cancer. He no longer comes to the Capitol building in Washington, but instead works from home, after many surgeries that the regular people could not afford now, much less then when we must, under the new proposed plans, ration our care.

“I have enjoyed the best medical care money (and a good insurance policy) can buy. . . . Every American should be able to get the same treatment that U.S. senators are entitled to,” Kennedy wrote in an unusually personal essay published in this week’s Newsweek, adding near the end of the article: “We’re almost there.”

He cited his sophisticated course of treatment — risky surgery at Duke University Medical Center to remove part of the tumor, proton-beam radiation at Massachusetts General Hospital and multiple rounds of chemotherapy — as a privilege of the rich.

“My wife, Vicki, and I have worried about many things, but not whether we could afford my care and treatment.”

latimes.com

Don’t you just love the candor with which he just pours out the fact that you or I could not afford the treatment he got? “A privilege of the rich.” Yes, Teddy, I guess it is- how nice of you to point it out. It’s too late to challenge Teddy to use the same insurance that he wants to force others to have, but it truly should be written into the plan that our politicians should be subject to the same treatment options and restrictions that everyone else has to abide by. Perhaps then they would not scrimp, or ration care, or score people according to their “worth” to society.

The tragedies Kennedy experienced in his life — his brothers’ deaths, his son Ted Jr.’s partial leg amputation from bone cancer, his daughter Kara’s lung cancer — shaped a commitment to universal healthcare that spans nearly half a century. His wealth and influence enabled him to retain a brain specialist in an attempt to save his brother, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and find cutting-edge cancer care for his children, options he frequently has said every family deserves.

latimes.com

Yes, being rich doesn’t suck, as they say- if you have the money, you can hire who you wish, but in this “ObamaCare” bill, you wouldn’t get the same chances, or treatments Teddy has been able to obtain, due to his wealth. Instead, we would get waiting times a la Canada, incompetent doctors, (because of the Affirmative Action portions of this bill, which would require the hiring of “diverse” doctors, no matter their incompetence), and a “value” assessed on just what our “cost” to society might be.

What chafes me about Teddy, is the near reverence he has managed to evoke in the halls of Washington, simply because he, 1)- escaped being indicted for manslaughter, 2)- has a truly legendary liver, having consumed at least a distillery in his lifetime, and 3)- hasn’t (as far as we know) contracted a terminal STD (although I understand that syphilis affects the brain). Surely there should be something more to his legacy than the gist of a drinking song, and Teddy hopes that this shoddy healthcare bill is it.

Sorry- but the bill is as flawed as Teddy is- if he hadn’t been so blinded by his political partnerships with the unions, gay community, and every other liberal cause he could grope, perhaps he might have had a real- world reaction to health care reform, but, like every other liberal, he owed these special interest groups, and had to pay them back.

Ted Kennedy’s record on healthcare reform is hardly flawless. Critics believe his refusal to compromise with Presidents Nixon and Carter caused him to miss promising windows of opportunity. During the Reagan years, he bowed to labor unions and declined to back a plan for catastrophic health insurance, a move he later regretted. 

latimes.com

Yep, now this healthcare thing has morphed into a blatant power grab by the liberal elites who will opt, because of their money, to seek better care for themselves because they can.

Just like in George Orwell’s book, Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others.

And the Rich are the most equal of all.

Well, Im’ convinced-  not necessarily about man’s role in all that inconvenient Global Cooling, uh, warming, uh- scratch that- Take Two!

Well, I’m convinced that maybe something might sort of , could be, who knows, maybe be some kind of climate change thingie. Seriously- something HAS to be going on, because they are RIGHT- climate is changing. It’s soooooo weird- every three months or so, the climate either gets colder, or it gets hotter. Plus, we have all these gross thunderstorms and stuff, yuck! I sure hope that guy in the Washington – (what is it, a museum? What? A house? Shut Up!) wherever he is, you know, the guy that said no more taxes ever will just stop this yucky weather- I’ve got to go to the mall.

The thing is, one part out of all of the pap the left has spewed about ‘Global” whatever is that there is money to be made on the backs of all of us schlubs out here- just ask Al Gore. You remember him- the guy who ran for president and couldn’t even carry his own state? Well he’s doing just fine, thanks to the left pushing this scam on the American public.

When Al Gore lost the election in 2000, he was worth about 2 million, but thanks to the left pushing his movie like it was crack, and all the speaking engagements, where he is a legend in his own mind, he is now worth approximately 100 million. That’s real money, even if he was to pay half of that to the federal government, which I am sure he will find a way to avoid. If he bought “Carbon Offsets” to subsidize the “footprint” he leaves with all his SUVs, and his Gulfstream aircraft, he would be a lot poorer, but noooo.

He has privately told people he wants to be the first “Carbon” billionaire, which is a feat, for he produces nothing but hot air, so while he might qualify for a tax credit under “alternative” energy guidelines, all this proves is that liberals do not feel as if they have to actually produce anything in order to enrich themselves- just ride the backs of all of us who do actual work.

Carbon taxes, or Cap and Trade, if you wish to use that disingenuous term, are another way to tax the working man and woman without calling it an outright tax, but when it is in full swing, our energy prices will double. Tell me if you are paying too low a price for your energy now- anybody?- No?- I didn’t think so, but wait-

THERE’S MORE!

It wouldn’t just affect your at home energy, but every gallon of gasoline, every bit of energy you use at work- really, truly, anything you do would be taxed and MONITORED. Yes, if you turned your thermostat down lower than Barama decrees, well, there will be a penalty tax attached. Like Pavlov’s Dog, they intend to socially engineer us through aversion techniques- if it hurts your wallet bad enough, you will learn to like freezing, or sweating- depending on, of course, the ” climate change.”

You see, we have people now in power that feel that our ( the United States) carbon footprint is too large, so we must shrink it, and they feel that the best way to do that is to make us produce less. This would begin to bring us down to the level of a third- world nation, and make other nations feel better about themselves, but is it really our task to re- do any other nation’s self- image?

Listen, I feel sorry for all the liberals who loathe themselves because they were fortunate enough to be born in the greatest country in the world, but our success is not cause for sorrow, nor have we caused all the problems in the world today. I have no guilt over the Palestinian problem- if they are too stupid to realize that throwing a rock at a tank might get them shot, oh well.

Still, the “greening” of Al Gore we can do without- as we can this onerous tax on energy. When we have a workable plan for alternative energy, fine, I’m all for it, but punishing our society for succeeding when all you liberals want is failure is childish, and worse, incredibly ignorant.

Not that that fault has ever stopped you before.