The Party Of Intollerance: The Democratic Party

Even Jon Stewart is getting tired of the hypocrisy of his party of choice.  The intollerance shown at the DNC by delegates is stunning:

<

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

WOW!

Reason TV: The Machine

Another edition of Reason TV:

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz...Is An Idiot

This woman is an idiot.  An old friend of mine from her district in Florida can't believe this moron has been elected to Congress, much less re-elected several times.  Here's why she's an idiot.  She flat out lies more or less, continuously.  In a training session for Jewish members of the Democratic Party, she said, here's the recording...you decide is she said it,

As she was wrapping up her remarks, she claimed that, “We know, and I’ve heard no less than Ambassador Michael Oren say this, that what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel.”

The Washington Examiner could find no such public reference by Oren accusing Republicans of being “dangerous” to Israel. The Israeli embassy would not respond to a request for comment. (Update: The Israeli embassy has responded.)

Wasserman Schultz went on to elaborate that Republicans were “undermining Israel’s security by suggesting that the United States and Israel don’t have anything other than a unique and close and special relationship. It undermines Israel’s security to its neighbors in the Arab world and to its enemies. And we need to make sure that the fact that there has never been and will never be daylight between the two parties or the support for Israel that we have in the United States, that that is conveyed to Jewish Americans across this country. That’s our responsibility. It’s the responsibility we’re asking all of you to take

Then had the temerity to go on FoxNews and try to deny it.




She just can't help herself.  Philip Klein, of the Washington  Examiner, recorded the conversation she was having which clearly shows that she's lying.  How in the hell can she think that she can get away with that?  She's an idiot...

Government Is The Only Thing We All Belong To...

Here's the latest DNC ad:



I don't know about you, but I don't trust the government to do shit. In 2009, after my business went under, and I lost my house, my wife and I were told we "made too much money"...she'd been out of work at that point for 7 months, and I'd been out of work for 4...

Yet, the Democrats want us to believe that we can trust them to run things...$16,000,000,000,000.00 in public debt says otherwise.

The Obama Hypocrisy...

Here's the real hypocrisy  of both Obama and the Democratic Party. 



If it was unpatriotic to add $4,000,000,000,000.00 to the debt over the eight year G. W. Bush presidency, what do you call adding $5,700,000,000,000.00?  That's the thing.  Over the past THREE years, Mr. Obama has added more to the public debt than every other presideng prior to  Bush combined.  In 2008, Obama called that a terrible thing.  Since then, he's more than doubled that.

Mr. Obama and the Democratic party are a threat to America and it's past time to do something about it.  They work for us and their policies have failed and have mortgaged the future to pay for today.  We've run out of other people's money.  It's time for them to go...

Obama Led Lawsuit Fueled Sub-Prime Housing Bubble!

Barack Obama, as a "community organizer" (communist PC speak for economic saboteur) filed a lawsuit in 1995 that was a moving force that brought on the Sub-Prime Mortgage meltdown in 2008.

President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices.

This from the guy who blames his predecessor for all the economic woes of this country.

In the White House, Obama has continued to intensify regulatory pressure on banks to provide more risky loans to African-Americans and Latinos. He has used lawsuits to fund his allies. And taxpayers are now unwittingly contributing to a re-inflation of housing prices.

Meanwhile, the president has blamed the housing bubble on supposed GOP deregulation, even though President George W. Bush expanded the regulation-expanding, anti-redlining policies established by progressives during Bill Clinton’s presidency.

“Governor Romney’s plan would… roll back regulations on big banks,” Obama says of his Republican challenger Mitt Romney in a 2012 TV ad titled “The Choice.”

“But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It’s what caused the mess in the first place.”<

But then, it's all Bush's fault, isn't it?

Obama's Empty Chair: Hope & Change Ediition

This is the best I've seen yet:

via Craig Carrol on Twitter,

The Truth Wins Out...

Here's what is happening to the Liberal Left in a nutshell:

...this was taken in Berkley, CA by Zombie,  and it epynimous of what the Left represents now...faded, old ideas that just don't work.

FEDERALIST No. 45

The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments ConsideredFor the Independent Fournal. James Madison

 To the People of the State of New York:  HAVING shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unnecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States. The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us.

Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale. We have seen, in all the examples of ancient and modern confederacies, the strongest tendency continually betraying itself in the members, to despoil the general government of its authorities, with a very ineffectual capacity in the latter to defend itself against the encroachments. Although, in most of these examples, the system has been so dissimilar from that under consideration as greatly to weaken any inference concerning the latter from the fate of the former, yet, as the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty, the inference ought not to be wholly disregarded. In the Achaean league it is probable that the federal head had a degree and species of power, which gave it a considerable likeness to the government framed by the convention. The Lycian Confederacy, as far as its principles and form are transmitted, must have borne a still greater analogy to it. Yet history does not inform us that either of them ever degenerated, or tended to degenerate, into one consolidated government. On the contrary, we know that the ruin of one of them proceeded from the incapacity of the federal authority to prevent the dissensions, and finally the disunion, of the subordinate authorities. These cases are the more worthy of our attention, as the external causes by which the component parts were pressed together were much more numerous and powerful than in our case; and consequently less powerful ligaments within would be sufficient to bind the members to the head, and to each other.

In the feudal system, we have seen a similar propensity exemplified. Notwithstanding the want of proper sympathy in every instance between the local sovereigns and the people, and the sympathy in some instances between the general sovereign and the latter, it usually happened that the local sovereigns prevailed in the rivalship for encroachments. Had no external dangers enforced internal harmony and subordination, and particularly, had the local sovereigns possessed the affections of the people, the great kingdoms in Europe would at this time consist of as many independent princes as there were formerly feudatory barons. The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other. The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members. The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter. The members of the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments of thirteen and more States, the justices of peace, officers of militia, ministerial officers of justice, with all the county, corporation, and town officers, for three millions and more of people, intermixed, and having particular acquaintance with every class and circle of people, must exceed, beyond all proportion, both in number and influence, those of every description who will be employed in the administration of the federal system. Compare the members of the three great departments of the thirteen States, excluding from the judiciary department the justices of peace, with the members of the corresponding departments of the single government of the Union; compare the militia officers of three millions of people with the military and marine officers of any establishment which is within the compass of probability, or, I may add, of possibility, and in this view alone, we may pronounce the advantage of the States to be decisive. If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side. It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State. The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them. The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the States themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them. Had the States complied punctually with the articles of Confederation, or could their compliance have been enforced by as peaceable means as may be used with success towards single persons, our past experience is very far from countenancing an opinion, that the State governments would have lost their constitutional powers, and have gradually undergone an entire consolidation. To maintain that such an event would have ensued, would be to say at once, that the existence of the State governments is incompatible with any system whatever that accomplishes the essental purposes of the Union. PUBLIUS.

New Obama Bumper Sticker

From Linda D. comes a new bumper sticker:

That pretty much sums up my position at this point.

Alinsky's Rules For Conservatives....

It's about time we turned the Left's weapons against them.  Last week's RNC Convention did just that.  Clint Eastwood in a brilliantly delivered "rambling speech" (as an actor, I suspect that the delivery was on purpose).  He used Rule 5...ridicule your oponent.  Just for shits and grins, and not having to read through all of Alinsky's crypto communistic bulllshit, here are the "rules":

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

It's well past time we use this "rules" to finish off what's left of the Liberal Left...pun intended.  With the media all in on keeping Obama in office, we should use those tools they've used on us for the past 50 years.

Farewell, from all of us at Paragon Studios

I just found out today that a game, a MMORPG, that I've been playing online for the past 8 years is being shut down.

This morning we announced that Paragon Studios will be taking to the skies of City of Heroes for the last time.

In a realignment of company focus and publishing support, NCsoft has made the decision to close Paragon Studios. Effective immediately, all development on City of Heroes will cease and we will begin preparations to sunset the world's first, and best, Super Hero MMORPG before the end of the year. As part of this, all recurring subscription billing and Paragon Market purchasing will be discontinued effective immediately. We will have more information regarding a detailed timeline for the cessation of services and what you can expect in game in the coming weeks.

The team here at Paragon deserves special praise for all that we have accomplished over the last 5+ years. These developers are some of the most creative and talented people in the gaming industry. By now, we've all been given this news internally, but to anyone who may be reading this message after the fact; know that your hard work and dedication has not gone unappreciated or unnoticed. To any potential studios looking to grow your team; hire these people. You won't regret it.

To our Community,

Thank you. Thank you for your years of support. You've been with us every step of the way, sharing in our challenges, encouraging us to make City of Heroes better, more than everyone else thought it could be. We couldn't have come this far without you. I implore you all, focus on the good things of CoH and Paragon Studios. Don't dwell on the "how" or the "why", but rather join us in celebrating the legacy of an amazing partnership between the players and the development team.

Thank you, and I'll see you in the skies, one last time.

Andy Belford
Community Manager
Paragon Studios
 

I for one, will miss the game, it was a hell of a lot of fun running around like a bunch of 4 year olds, playing super heroes and super villains.  On November 30th, City of Heroes, City of Villains will be no more...

Are You Better Off?

Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?  Even David Axelrod can't so yes to that.

Jane Edmonds, Liberal Democrat...for Romney

Here is a great speech that wasn't aired by ANY news channel...Mr. Romney's former Secretary for Employment and Labour, Massachusetss.




Jane Edmonds, Liberal Democrat...supports Mitt Romney.

Clint Eastwood's Speech

It's a very simple speech.  Not eloquent in the Obama mode, but rather that of an ordinary man, who...once disappointed, won't ever make that mistake again.  In his own words,



An elegant speech from the heart.  You  don't hear those at political conventions...ever.  My hat is off to Mr. Eastwood, and I hope that Messers Romney and Ryan can, in the end, "retire" Mr. Obama from office ('retire' is the term Mr. Carter uses when describing the asswhoopin' he got in 1980).

Bow To No One!

My president should bow to no one.




hat tip Legal Insurrection

One Small Step For A Man...

Houston, Tranquility Base here, the Eagle has landed...




I met Neil Armstrong in 1968, when I was six years old.  He came to Hamilton Standard, where my father was working as lead designer on the space suits that he would wear to the moon.  He also was a lead designer of the life support backpack they wore...the three "first men on the moon" came to the factory picnic as a reward to the guys who worked there.  I was six...

Mr.Obama We Built This Country, Not The Government!

Here's an excellent commentary on Obama's "You Didn't Build It."

129 As a small business owner all I can say is that I think the current sentiment in the small business community is that we didn't sign up for this shit. Y'all can vote for whatever the hell you want but we are not going to be a part of it.

I have seen more owners get out of the business or retire in the past couple of years than ever before and with the ACA on the horizon the jobs these businesses produced will not be replaced. The economics no longer work. This is why unemployment is always so high in socialist countries. What you have to go through to have employees is just brutal.
But here's the thing about what Obama said --- he has it exactly backwards. The government didn't build any of that shit he is talking about --- we built it. We are the ones who paid for it. Not only did we build our businesses we built the schools and the roads and everything else he thinks was generated out of thin air. If you want to get technical about it the businesses and taxpayers that came along before we did built it all and now we are building what comes next.

And not only that, but we did it with the albatross of a predatory, corrupt and overbearing government hanging around our necks at every juncture.
And now we have had enough.

I haven't made more than $50k from my business but one or two years of the past 15. But now that it is time to cash out after providing literally hundreds of jobs I get the stink eye and get castigated for being a member of the 1%. Even though I can remember sitting on the edge of the bed and holding my head in my hands wondering what I had done risking everything I had to create a business and wondering how it would all work out when I had just finished working several days in a row with no sleep... I am the enemy. Even though I didn't take a paycheck for the first year of the business and later skipped other paychecks to meet payroll or to pay taxes I am somehow at fault for the fact that all of these people sitting on their asses or working their cushy government jobs with the large pensions funded by armies of tax collectors and regulators may have to go without.

Well, I already went without so they can bloody well shut the fuck up and take their turn in the barrel! If they want to risk everything they have or work their asses off with no guarantee of success only to be told at the end that they were not responsible for their own success and don't deserve their rewards then they are welcome to go down that path and see what it is like. But the number of people who will pursue the American dream and build the economy from the roots up will be greatly decreased in the current atmosphere and all of these self-entitled idiots will sit around wondering why the government is still going broke and why no one is hiring.

No country can survive socialism. It just doesn't happen. Sooner or later the bill comes due. But before it does you always get demagogic idiots like Obama, or Chavez who try to blame their failures on the only people who are keeping everything afloat. It is not enough they sank the damn ship... they have to come after the people in the life boats too.

That is the sort of mentality we are dealing with.
Posted by: Voluble at August 18, 2012 12:58 PM (qYvEa)

Via Ed Driscoll

Obama's Tough Press Questions...

You can't make this shit up...






via Newsalert

Democrats: "I Want It Now!"

Via LegalInsurrection.com

August Unemployment

Here's the chart showing unemployment under the "stimulus" package...

and another graphic:

Toure: A Conservative Response

Here's is Kira Davis' elequent a response to Toure's "niggerization" comment as there has been.

The Obama That I Used To Know

great video:

Election 2012: The Bottom Line

Every once in a while, I read something that really strikes a cord.  This election isn't about Romney/Obama, it's about the direction the country is currently heading.  It's about whether or not Americans will have control of the direction their lives go, or whether the government will.

There is not a single Obama voter anywhere in the land who believes that another four years of him will make this country better. Not a single one from coast to coast. No, what they believe is that he will make the country a worse place for those people that they hate. That he will have four more years to sink their ideas deeper in the earth, regardless of how many families go hungry and how many fathers kill themselves because they can no longer take care of their families. What they believe is that Obama will grant their group more special privileges and the rest of the country can go to hell.

 .
– Daniel Greenfield on “The Most Divisive Campaign in American History.”  Here's some more;

Obama can't win on the economy. He can't win on foreign policy. He can't win on any aspect of his administration. All he can do is stir up violence and then promise to heal the country in his second term while winking to all the representatives of the grievance groups. It's not a new game, but the Democratic Party has never played it quite this baldly in a national election. And if it succeeds, then national politics will have finally been reduced to the level of a Chicago election.

We were expected to believe that the typical Obama voter in 2008 was hoping for a better country, but in 2012 there is no more hope, only hate and fear. The typical Obama voter is not acting as an American, but as a representative of an entitled group looking to secure and expand those entitlements at the expense and the detriment of the country at large.

To vote for Obama after years of grotesque economic mismanagement that has no precedent in history, that exceeds the worst actions of Andrew Jackson or Ulysses S. Grant, is not the instinct of an American, but a selfish greedy looter scrambling to grab a few dinner rolls off the tray while the ship is going down. There is no policy justification for voting for a man with the worst economic and foreign policy record in the country's history. There is no American justification for voting for him. Only the UnAmerican motivation of carving up a dying country into group fiefdoms privileging identity politics over the common good.

And, that ladies and gentlemen is what this election is about.  Every so often, there comes a turning point in our history.  One at which We The People have a say in  what direction we want the country to go.  This election is our choice...to choose government control of our lives, or to be able to grab the reigns ourselves...we have 83 days left to choose wisely.

HT:  Ed Driscoll.

And So It Begins...

Over the next few months we can expect all of the MSM to palinize Paul Ryan as a horrible racist and mysoginist.  It's started yesterday and you can expect it to build into a crescendo over the next month.

Romney Vs Obama

From Linda:

How do you tell a Romney voter from an Obama voter?

Romney supporters sign their checks on the front;

Obama supporters sign 'em on the back.

Star Trek: J. J. Abrams, Damon Lindelof

Saturday, Aug 11, 2012

Rich and I decided to watch movies this morning and we put in "Star Trek" by J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof and as the progressed we started to wonder if and when the squeal was coming to the big screen.  So, I of course went to the computer and started to do some research on any squeal. As I found; there is of course one and it is in post-production and with a story line including "Kahn".

I very much enjoyed the new version that J.J.Abrams and Damon Lindelof were taking the "new crew".  What I don't understand is why would you take a story line that has not just been done in the original series but then continued as a squeal with the "Star Trek: the Wrath of Kahn".

I was excited to hear that there would be another movie being made but to go back to the ideas of the shows and previous movies is showing a lack of creativity.

If they really wanted to take the show into a new direction; as they have already changed the past and created a new future than incorporating what they have changed and start a new and alternate future should be the course of the "New: Star Trek".

For example: Since Spock's mother has been killed and Kirk's father has been killed; why not put together Spock's father and Kirk's mother and write a story around this angle.

This would be a different spin on Spock's and Kirk's relationship as this would now make them step-brothers.
A "family dynamic" that would effect future story lines and their relationship.

The new movies should look to a new course and new story lines to keep it alive.

Cheri Vail

I-94 road closure

Road Closure ... FYI - Please pass this along on a need-to-know basis! Scheduled I-94 Closing for Coal transport I-94 will be closed tomorrow across Michigan . They are hauling a 200 ton lump of coal so they can add Obama to Mount Rushmore . They had to settle for coal because they couldn't find a 200 ton piece of shit.

Harry Reid on Silicon Graffti

Here's Ed Driscoll's newest installment of Silicon Graffiti:

Romney Campaign Ads,...could write themselves

If Romney really wants to hammer Obama in ads, he should just replay most of Obama's 2008 campaign speeches.  The ads would just write themselves:




If you look at Obama's proposed budget, the deficit is three times the one the Democratically controlled Congress passed in 2008...and it's still rising...

All of Obama's pledges have a time lapse on them...I guess this one does too:

Mr. Obama has added  more to the public debt than all the rest of the presidents and Congresses combined.  That's frightening...and the fact that we have no end in sight is rather scary as well.  We are on the precipice of bankruptcy.

It's time for Congress to stop spending money we don't have.  The rest of the world won't continue to buy US bonds in perpetuity.  We can't continue to spend, spend, and spend some more.  The end is nigh.