A Koch And A Smile
Oct 27, 2015 2016 Election, Political
I am sure many folks have heard of the Koch brothers. They are the successful guys who use their money to support candidates they believe in and are the most hated by liberals. They are constantly attacked by the likes of Harry Reid and his ilk and made out to be demons because of who (and what) they spend their money on.
Charles and David Koch happen to support conservative candidates and causes so, to liberals, when they spend their money on these things they are evil and what is wrong in America.
The left never complains about the evil man George Soros and his money. Soros has spent millions upon millions of dollars for liberal causes and no liberal ever questions the way that money is spent or declares that Soros is what is wrong with America. George is Jewish but he pretended to be Christian and helped confiscate Jew’s property for the Nazis. He also broke the Bank of England by manipulating the currency.
He is an evil man but since he spends his money on liberal/progressive causes he is cherished among the left.
The Koch brothers, to the left, are horrible people who want to see people die so they can earn more money.
Never mind the fact that the Koch brothers employ 60,000 people and produce products that we need. I know that liberals don’t care for toilet paper (from those who say we should use one sheet to those Occupy Wall Street types who just crap where they want) but the civilized among us are happy it is available. Even liberals can’t get by the fact that Dixie cups and Brawny paper towels make life better. The funny thing is their company makes some of the parts that are used in smart phones. You know, the devices liberals take pictures with to decry capitalism…
The Koch’s produce many products that make our lives better and they employ a lot of folks who work hard, earn good money and pay taxes.
Yep, they have to be bad because they are successful.
Charles Koch recently discussed his views about being demonized in order to clear the air.
He is tired of being a villain for spending his money as he sees fit.
I don’t blame him. It is HIS money and he can spend it how he wants (and if he wants to give me a million dollars I would not be unhappy about that). I don’t care for Soros and will have a party when he finally leaves this place but he can spend his money as he wishes.
Mr. Koch’s charitable donations equal about $305,000 per day ($111 million last year). You never hear about that when he is being demonized.
The reality is America needs more people like the Kochs, who want everyone to succeed, and fewer like Soros who want to increase their wealth at the expense and misery of others.
Liberals hate the Kochs because they are the American Dream. They have succeeded and spread their wealth around while providing good paying jobs for a large number of people. They are proof that you can make it in America.
Liberals can’t have that because they want people to be slaves to the government plantation, particularly a government plantation run by liberal task masters.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: conservative, freedom, koch, liberalism, lies, money, progressive, Soros
It’s Not For The Children, It’s For The Money…
Jan 15, 2015 Commentary, Political
The state of Maryland changed the start of the school year some time ago so that children went back to school the last week of August. In years past the children started school after Labor Day.
I thought it was foolish to change the date in the first place given that many families like to vacation that week into the holiday weekend.
Looks like some state politicians want to change it back to the way it used to be. Comptroller Peter Franchot had a petition drive to force the issue.
While it would be nice to think this was about accommodating families and their vacation plans or that it was, as liberals love to say, for the children, the reality is the request for change is based on money.
Franchot released an economic impact in 2013 (regarding starting school before the holiday) and determined that moving the start of school until after Labor Day will result in over 74 MILLION dollars of “direct economic activity.”
I have no doubt that the date change would result in an increase in money. People come from other states to vacation at the beaches (the change would not impact them per se) and folks from within the state like to go there. Starting after Labor Day would make it easier for people to plan vacations that include the holiday. The Maryland State Fair happens around that time so not worrying about school for that week would likely result in greater attendance.
I have no dog in this hunt though I never favored changing the date to August in the first place. I do think that decisions about when children go to school should be based on more than how it will help the state financially. What other factors are involved. Surely there were reasons that it was changed in the first place. If there is no good reason to start in August then why did they do it to begin with?
My preference would be to start after Labor Day as it had always been regardless of the financial windfall. It only makes sense to start children the day after the holiday rather than start them a week before only to be off for a holiday.
Regardless how this turns out I am amazed that Franchot actually stated the true purpose. Usually things government does that are designed to raise revenue (red light and speeding cameras) are couched in some feel good story like it makes us safer or it is for the kids…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: finances, Maryland, money, peter franchot, school start
Why Did Obama Come Out Of The Closet?
May 10, 2012 Political
Barack Obama announced his support for gay marriage yesterday after his hand was “forced” by his gaffe prone VP, Joe Biden. Over the weekend Biden expressed support for gay marriage and the media frenzy began until Obama was “forced” to address the issue.
Obama claims his opinion on the issue has evolved and that discussions with gay people, his wife and children helped him evolve on the issue. While it might be true that he spoke with them about the issue it had nothing to do with evolving.
Obama has always supported gay marriage. Actually, he has said he does and that he doesn’t and that he does. It all depended on the time and the audience. Rather than evolving it would be more accurate to say Obama’s opinion has been revolving because he keeps going round and round on it.
Obama has always supported gay marriage. He just has not always voiced that support.
In fact, the announcement of this evolution is something that has been ongoing as he and his aides discussed whether he should announce it or not before the election (more flexibility after) and if before, when would be the best time politically? Obama wanted the announcement to provide the biggest bang for the buck, so to speak.
In just 90 minutes after his announcement he received a million dollars in donation from the gay activists. Of course, the obligatory fundraising email went out last night.
Obama is an opportunist. He planned on “evolving” all along but wanted to wait until after the election. He is in a tough fight so he wanted to get the gay community and his liberal base back in the fight. The African American community is strongly against gay marriage but Obama has little to worry about as many will vote Democrat no matter what and many who don’t vote or like his positions will go out and vote for him just because he is black. That is a fact that many blacks have already made public. There are some who question whether Obama will get that support though.
Obama risks losing more of the Independent voters who are not in favor of gay marriage. Obama risks losing those in the majority of states that have already rejected gay marriage.
This is all a political stunt. Obama has always believed in gay marriage. He knows that gay issues (like marriage) are part of the tactics used to brainwash a nation and make it Communist.
He wants this to happen but he wanted to wait until after the election and he would have had Biden not opened his mouth.
Obama, always the politician, has left himself some wiggle room. He announced that he is in favor of gay marriage BUT that he supports the concept of states deciding the issue.
He can pander to his base for votes and cash while making the blatantly obvious point that this IS a state’s rights issue.
Then again so was abortion before the federal government involved itself.
Obama would love nothing more than for a court to decide that gay marriage is a federal issue and conjure up a right out of thin air like it did with abortion. He would love for a court to say that all states have to honor the marriage of a gay couple that was legally performed in a state that allows it. It would be his way of using the backdoor (pun intended) to get gay marriage in all states.
Funny, Obama would oppose any legislation that would allow a concealed carry permit to be recognized in all states.
For now though, he will have to be content to state his support of an issue that he cannot possibly affect because, as he said, it is an issue that is up to each state.
And the gays will swallow this hook, line, and sinker…
The Washington Post has a good editorial.
As for me, I don’t have anything against gay people. I have an issue with the attempt to redefine marriage. And let us remember, there is no right to marry…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: campaign, deceit, evolving, gay marriage, gays, lies, money, Obama, pandering, revolving
Obamascare, The New Path To Bad Medicine
Apr 30, 2012 Political
Anyone who thinks the Food and Drug Administration is in business to protect people is living in a fantasy world. The FDA approves drugs and says whether they can be used and by whom and then when there is a problem the FDA has no responsibility. It points fingers to the drug manufacturer. Of course those who made the drug are culpable but so are those who approved the drug.
The FDA is so concerned about the health of people that it is considering removing the need for a prescription for certain drugs like those to treat high blood pressure and high cholesterol.
This means that patients would not need to see a doctor in order to get those medications. While that might be reasonable for some medications (like 800 mg Ibuprofen) it is not wise for others like blood pressure medication.
These conditions require monitoring by a doctor. The medications often require blood tests and other testing to ensure the medication is therapeutic and not causing damage. It is also important that people do not take the drugs to treat perceived rather than actual maladies.
What if the high blood pressure is caused by another condition?
The FDA is doing this for what reason?
It is considering making some medications over the counter (OTC) to reduce the cost of Medicare which is even more burdened by Obamacare.
The cost and not the health of the patient is the overriding factor in this decision. If people get injured or die as a result of this decision then it is a small price to pay to keep costs under control (which might not be under control for those not on Medicare as insurance companies decide not to pay for OTC medication).
Sounds like a back door death panel to me.
While I think the FDA does stupid things and makes some drugs prescription when they do not need to be I also think the random removal of drugs in order to save money is criminal.
Then again, Obamacare is a criminal law.
If we are going to have an FDA then it needs to make sound decisions that protect the public.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Obama Goes From Stopping To Defending Super PAC Money
Feb 7, 2012 Political
Barack Obama said he was against super PACs and their involvement in American politics. He excoriated the Supreme Court for its decision in the matter of political donations during one of his State of the Union Addresses. In 2010 Obama said that PACs were a corporate takeover of our Democracy (we have a Republic). Here is what he had to say about it:
“The worst thing of all they don’t have to reveal who is having to pay for them.” Obama said, criticizing Republicans for “keeping the American public in the dark.”
“We cannot allow a corporate takeover of our democracy,” Obama added, vowing to fight this type of advertising. “Let’s challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us is stopping it.” he declared.
“Millions of Americans are struggling to get by and their voices shouldn’t be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret special interest advertising,” Obama added, “Their voices should be heard.” [emphasis mine] Washington Examiner
Obama said our voices needed to be heard and that the challenge was for every elected official to defend the infusion of PAC money or to join Obama in stopping it.
Looks like the Won, the messiah, the change we can believe in has changed his mind on the subject.
In a change of position, Barack Obama’s reelection campaign will begin using administration and campaign aides to fundraise for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing the president. CNN Political Tracker
In a change of position, well he did promise us change.
Obama is now playing the game he said he opposed. He is getting involved in the super PAC game in order to raise money for his reelection effort. His minions (and no doubt his toadies who will read this) claim that he needs to do this because of the large influx of money from super PACs on the Republican side.
Obama is doing this because he needs more money and that is supposed to make it OK. The same argument could be made that those who do not oppose super PAC money take it because they need the money to get elected. They too are outgunned (David Axelrod said there is an “array of guns pointed at us” so is this a violent metaphor we can use to blame him if there is violence?) by the people who they are running against. Democrats get large amounts of money from donors (despite the claims of small donors there are lots of big name and big money donors) and they use that money for Democrats to get elected.
A few years ago when Obama was getting boatloads of money for his campaign would he, Axelrod (or any other Democrat) have accepted the excuse from John McCain that he had an array of guns pointed at him so he needed to take PAC money? Hell no! They would have screamed what Obama said in 2010 about corporations taking over our Democracy.
But since Obama wants the money it is now OK to be involved with super PACs.
Here is a video of Obama slamming John Edwards for claiming to be against this kind of money but taking it. Obama says that you can’t just talk the talk; you have to walk the walk.
Mr. Obama, you are now taking the money when you claim to be opposed to it. You can’t talk the talk; you have to walk the walk.
Obama is a hypocrite. I know that liberals will defend this position because they will claim lil’ Barry has to keep up with opponents but that does not make it right. He said he was against the money so he should not take the money.
Then again, this is the guy who said that George Bush was unpatriotic and demonstrated poor leadership for adding trillions of dollars in debt to the country and then promptly added 5 trillion dollars of debt to the country.
If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you were not a racist you must vote against him in 2012 to prove you are not an idiot.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.