Jan 17, 2013 Political
Time to Stand and Fight
The NRA has an ad pointing out that Barack Obama’s children attend a school with armed guards but he refuses to allow the same protection for our children. The White House was upset that Obama’s children were used in such fashion. Funny though, Obama did not mind exploiting the dead children from Connecticut and he certainly did not mind using other people’s kids to push his agenda yesterday when he used his Imperial position to impose gun restrictions.
Here is a new ad from the NRA. It is right on point and it shows many in the media attacking Wayne LaPierre for saying that schools should have armed guards (a position most Americans agree with). It is crazy, they say, to suggest putting more guns in schools (yeah, because right now the only ones that make it there are carried by crazy people).
Keep in mind that the media all attacked LaPierre for his suggestion. That same media fawned over Obama’s proposals. Here is one of those proposals (I agree in principle with the idea here though I doubt this is a federal responsibility):
The president will also push for federal funds for more school counselors and mental health aides and for schools and school districts that want to hire armed and trained security officers CBS News
Why is that same media not attacking Obama for providing money for MORE guns in schools? Where are all those who attacked LaPierre for his proposal now that Obama has included that very idea in his package?
This is about advancing gun control. Make no mistake, gun control is not about guns but control of the people. The camel’s nose will get under the tent and pretty soon there will be a push for an all out ban.
It works this way. There is gun violence, the government makes rules that infringe upon those of us who did not commit that violence (while ignoring the fact that criminals don’t obey the law) and then when that does not work they come back and say the only thing that will work is a complete ban.
The time to fight is now. We cannot allow them to violate the Constitution and the other laws that have been passed to protect gun owners and our rights.
As an aside, Obama said that nothing in Obamacare keeps doctors from asking about guns. Section 2716 on page 2308 of Obamacare specifically says otherwise.
Never surrender, never submit.
Dec 11, 2012 Political
The French elected a Socialist to the presidency and that person, Francois Hollande, raised the tax rate on the wealthy to 75% for any income over 1 million Euros. The wealthy in France are not taking it lying down as many move out of the country. One such person is French actor Gerard Depardieu who bought a home and established legal residence in Belgium where the highest tax rate is 50%.
It is a shame that an area with a 50% tax rate is considered a haven from high taxes but this is what happens when governments continue to raise taxes. People become accustomed to the higher rates so that they eventually seem fair when the rates get really high.
This is an example of Overton’s Window.
In any event, the move is not sitting well with French politicians who are very upset that Depardieu moved out. They just can’t understand why this guy would want to keep the money he earned. This is a problem with liberal/progressive/socialists, they think the money one earns belongs to government and can’t quite get a handle on why people balk at surrendering it.
The United States is led by such people who tell us very candidly that they believe in redistribution and that they think wealthy people reach a point where they have earned enough.
Amazingly, these people never feel they have earned enough. People like Bill Clinton leave politics and earn millions of dollars speaking and then look for ways to shelter the money. People like Warren Buffett decry low tax rates and scream for high tax rates on income while never advocating a tax on wealth. That would hurt them and they just can’t have that. Hell, Buffett owes the government a lot of money in taxes he has not paid…
Back to France. Keep in mind that Depardieu left to avoid paying 75% of his income (over a million Euros) to a place where he will pay taxes at a 50% rate. He is, in effect, keeping 25% of his money but he is denying all of the taxes he pays to France and that is not sitting well. The Socialist mayor of Paris, Bertrand Delanoe, described Depardieu as “…a generous man but in this instance he is not showing that.”
You got that? In order for Depardieu to show he is generous he needs to forfeit 75% of what he earns to the government. I would turn that around and say that the government is showing how greedy it is by confiscating three-fourths of what a person earns.
Once again, this is how these liberal/progressive/socialist leeches think. They think that if you work hard and earn money then you should have most of it confiscated by the government so it can be used to support others. You should earn that money for everyone else.
Or as Obama might say, you didn’t build that so you have no right to it…
The wealthy did not get that way by being foolish. Hell most got wealthy by Obama and his ilk designating 250k a year as being so but the truly wealthy got that way by taking risks and managing their money well. They will certainly be able to thwart government attempts to confiscate it.
The mob extorts money from people by threatening to send goons to harm them.
The government extorts money from people by threatening to send the IRS to harm them.
The only difference is that one of these entities has its extortion legalized but the outcome is the same. People are forced to comply until they can leave.
Depardieu did that in France and I suspect many Americans will do something similar. They might not leave the country but their money will go elsewhere.
Places where it can’t be fondled by the overly greedy government and its insatiable appetite for ever increasing and foolish spending.
But lest we forget folks, Obama owns all of this now. It is not on Bush or anyone else. It is on Obama. Anyone who follows him does so at his own risk (politically) but the onus is on Obama alone.
My only hope is that the pain that is sure to come affects those who voted for him in the most intense ways possible. You asked for it so you deserve what you get.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 30, 2012 Political
But I bet Obama blames Bush.
Obamacare, the terrible law opposed by most people, is set to fully implement in the later years of this decade and when it is fully in place there will be an even larger shortage of doctors. This comes as no surprise to those who noted that you can’t add 30 million people to the eligibility rolls and expect to have access to health care with the same number of doctors.
The New York Times discusses the future shortage under Obamacare as if this is some new revelation.
Amazingly, after supporting this terrible law the NYT finally comes to the game to discuss a major problem associated with it. If the NYT had been diligent in doing its job then perhaps it could have made these arguments during the debate over Obamacare.
Instead, it cheered Obama and the Democrats for their blatant act that enslaved people to government.
The situation will be even worse than this article reports because many doctors will stop practicing medicine when they see how Obamacare will affect their bottom line.
Of course, if the Communist in the White House gets a second term he might just use his Dear Leader powers to force doctors to keep working.
He could just impose a tax for not practicing medicine and call it a penalty.
John Roberts already told him it was OK to do that.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 10, 2012 Political
Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley is a tax and spend liberal in the same mold as Barack Obama. O’Moron (as I not so affectionately call him), believes that the rich don’t pay enough and that the money people make belongs to him. Yes, like Obama, O’Moron thinks of taxpayers as ATMs that have unlimited supplies of money to dispense for harebrained, and often unconstitutional, schemes.
O’Moron has aspirations of becoming president one day. He would like to continue Obama’s destructive policies (as he has in Maryland) in order to completely destroy this great nation.
Mark Levin recently called out O’Moron. I must say, Levin was spot on in his analysis of O’Moron:
While O’Moron thinks rich people don’t pay enough in taxes the rich have a different opinion. They are leaving Maryland in droves and it would appear as if they are moving to places like Florida where there are no state income taxes.
Yes, the article claims that the opposition says there is a net wash on inflow* (probably illegals or low wage earners looking for gubmint handouts) and outflow and that other things influence these kinds of decisions (like weather) but the reality is rich people are moving out. Surely those other factors affect people who are not rich so why are they not as mobile? [* it is possible that many of the inflow are from the people who moved here because of BRAC]
Perhaps because far too many pay no income taxes and live off the largess of those who actually pay taxes (through confiscation and redistribution by the government). O’Moron has certainly created an environment where those who do not pay taxes are comfortable living off those who do. He has further created an environment where people who have money do not want to stick around.
O’Moron has enacted tax after tax after tax so much so that the Welcome to Maryland signs are snidely referred to as having the tagline; “What’s in your wallet?”
This man is not a leader (and it is a stretch to call him a man) and he does not deserve to be in a position to take decisions that affect the lives of others. He could not lead a group of people out of a burning building so he should not be in charge of anything.
The people of Maryland have the government they deserve because far too many people in this state continue to vote for the same politicians each and every election. The state is a mini Communist regime with big brother dictating every aspect of our lives and taking money from the producers in order to pay for moronic programs.
It is probably too late for Maryland to address the situation because too many people here are on the liberal handout plantation and can’t leave their masters.
One can only hope that the country will be fed up enough after Obama that O’Moron NEVER gets the chance to lead the country.
One nanny state, liberal, Socialist, Commie, redistributionist, class warfare, sock puppet is bad enough.
We cannot afford to have another…
Brad Pitt’s mother discovers liberal tolerance Ever notice the right never threatened her son for his liberal views?
Never surrender, never submit.
May 21, 2012 Political
A North Carolina teacher who has been identified as Tanya Dixon-Neely was caught on video berating a student and trying to intimidate that student and others because they questioned her fact of the day. The fact of the day was that Mitt Romney was a bully back in high school.
Ignore for a moment the reality that calling this statement a fact is a bit of a stretch. Even if the hit piece by the Washington Post was true the incident was allegedly a prank and seems to be isolated. To say Romney was a bully based on this one incident is a bit of a stretch but let us suppose that one incident does a bully make.
This is where the teacher goes off the rails. A student had the audacity to point out that Obama was a bully in high school as well. The student asked the teacher; “Didn’t Obama bully somebody, though?” The teacher responds; “Not to my knowledge.” Then several students told her he had (Obama said so in his book). The teacher loses her mind and says that the two are not comparable.
The students argue that she needs to be fair and if she is going to trash one side for something she has to trash the other side for the same thing.
Dixon-Neely continues screaming at the children and telling them that the incidents are not the same because Obama is the president and Romney wants to be the president. The logic escapes me on this especially since the issue is about what took place before they were adults.
This supposed teacher makes several factually incorrect statements. She states that it is a criminal offense to say anything bad about a president. This is, of course, untrue. It is illegal to make threats against the president but people are free to say anything about the president that they want. It if was illegal to say bad things about a president half the population would be committing crimes during every presidency.
Dixon-Neely tells her students that no one will say anything bad about Obama in her classroom. When the student continues by telling her he will say what he wants she tells him that he will not in her classroom. The student then remarks that people talked “sh*t” about [George W] Bush (something the students admit they did as well) and the teacher tells him it was because Bush was sh*tty. She then, in a complete contradiction, claims that it is her job as a Social Studies teacher to make sure no one talks badly about any president past or present. This from the woman who just said Bush was a sh*tty president. You can also bet the house that she talks badly about Bush now and she did when he was president.
It appears to me that this teacher is not only a liberal, Obama supporter who is pushing an agenda but also has a chip on her shoulder regarding how people treat Obama. She makes the claim that Obama deserves the same respect as every other president and that people were arrested for talking bad about Bush (a claim that is incorrect) and that Obama has been treated badly and nothing happened to him. Her claim is that someone called Obama a liar during a State of the Union Address and nothing happened to the guy. It was Congressman Joe Wilson and he was punished by the House leadership for his outburst.
So it is obvious that not only is this “teacher” a partisan hack she is also uninformed. One would expect a Social Studies teacher to actually know these kinds of things but it appears as if she has been reading the DNC talking points rather than actually looking at what happened.
Her outburst and the way she talked to the students, students who were more informed than she, make it obvious that she does not believe it is her job to teach. She sees it as her job to indoctrinate.
She is a Socialism Studies teacher.
I am glad I am not a student today. I would eat this woman’s lunch.
The school indicated she will not be disciplined and her name was not released by the school. This is typical of the system where indoctrination and protecting teachers is the name of the game. Fortunately, she could not hide. This teacher does not believe in open, honest debate and she should be removed from the classroom.
The student in question had this recorded because he wanted to prove to his parents that she was pushing an agenda, something about which he had complained to them. They have now moved him to another school.
That is the shame of it. The student should have stayed and the teacher should have been removed…
Never surrender, never submit.