Category Archives: Liberal Hypocrisy

Montage

Posted on by

It has become a liberal tactic to release potentially damaging information late on Friday or Saturday when the MSM’s attention is elsewhere…or purposely redirected. This last weekend was no different.

On today’s Drudge Report is the headline: The Hilliary Papers: Ruthless First Lady. Diane Blair, a political science professor whom Hillary Clinton once described as her “closest friend”, died in 2000. She and others collected documents during the Clinton’s campaign before Bill Clinton’s run for the Presidency in 1992. More documents were added until Blair’s death.

Jim Blair, a former chief counsel at Tyson Foods Inc. who was at the center of “Cattlegate,” a 1994 controversy involving the unusually large returns Hillary Clinton made while trading cattle futures contracts in the 1970s, donated his wife’s papers to the University of Arkansas Special Collections library in Fayetteville after her death. — The Washington Free Beacon.

A memo from those archives, under the title of, “Research on Hillary Clinton,” noted that Bill, according to pollsters, was viewed as ‘slick,’ while Hillary was viewed as ruthless. The picture the documents paint of Bill and Hillary Clinton is not complementary. Bill comes across as bungling and stupid while Hillary is portrayed as one who’d cut a throat to maintain political power.

***

A bit of bad news for Obamacare came to light over the weekend. It is another ‘unintended consequence’ that the libs are now claiming to be a feature. (Systems Designers, development and project managers are very familiar with the tactic.)

Obamacare will induce people to drop out of the work force, a recent congressional study reported.

The Congressional Budget Office report, examining Obamacare’s effects on the economy, predicted that the U.S. workforce would shrink by 2.5 million people. The cause: Low-income people get subsidies when shopping on Obamacare’s health-insurance exchanges. This makes it easier for people to afford health care without a job or by working part-time. — The Washington Examiner.

The column may be a bit difficult to understand. The bottom line is the amount of subsidies granted to ‘qualified’ applicants may influence people to maintain low incomes or drop out of the work-force completely. An income difference of $1 can mean the loss of those subsidies and increased healthcare costs of thousands of dollars per year.  That—is a disincentive to work. Why work when more money means the loss of the subsidy and higher costs of the now-required healthcare coverage.

The ‘unintended consequence’ came to light in another venue, a discussion between the head of the Congressional Budget Office and Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney. The gist? Americans now have a choice whether or not to work!

My, oh, my, how times have changed. America now has a government that views work as a trap and celebrates those who escape it.

That is the upshot of last week’s remarkable exchange over ObamaCare. It began when the head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that the interplay of taxes and subsidies in the law “creates a disincentive for people to work.” The report predicted the mix would lead to fewer hours worked, costing the equivalent of nearly 2.5 million jobs.

In response, President Obama’s spokesman pleaded guilty — with pride and pleasure.

“Opportunity created by affordable, quality health insurance allows families in America to make a decision about how they will work, or if they will work,” Jay Carney said. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi applauded the law for freeing people from “job-lock.”

They never mentioned the implications of this distinctly Obamaish New Deal. The subsidies that enable some Americans to decide “if they will work” mean higher taxes from those who must or want to work. — The New York Post.

Job-lock. The democrats have created a new term. When I looked at the definition of the term in Wiki, I noticed the page was last updated February 9, 2014. Yes, the libs must keep ‘job-lock’ up to date.

***

When I was in the Air Force, one of the first things I read as it became available was the Air Force Times. Like the Air Force, each branch of the military had its paper, the Army Times, the Navy Times, and the Marine Corps Times. There may have been a Coast Guard Times, too, although I never saw one.

One reason why the ‘Times was so popular was that it was published by an independent, semi-private company. The current ‘Times are now owned by Gannet.

By semi-private, I mean the military branches tried, often, to control the content of the ‘Times. They failed each time. Many retired and active military members were contributors to the ‘Times. Military retirees often held paid and advisory positions to the various ‘Times editions. They knew where the bodies were buried and used that knowledge…frequently to the embarrassment of the particular branch.

The success of the ‘Times is its support of the lowest members of the military, not its highest. Those supporters insure truth and accuracy in the stories and reporting. The various ‘Times papers have credibility—more credibility than the military hierarchy and that difference in credibility is leading to conflict again.

Once again, the military hierarchy is attempting to control the content of the ‘Times…the Marine Corps Times in this particular case. I predict this effort will eventually fail, too. The last time a service branch tried to control the ‘Times, the paper was smuggled onto military bases around the world. Like Prohibition, banning the ‘Times will fail.

Marine Corps Times first casualty in headquarters’ war to ‘professionalize’

Independent newspaper does not conform to new Marine Corps message, brass says

Feb. 9, 2014 – 05:05PM, By Lance M. Bacon Staff writer

Marines leaf through a copy of Marine Corps Times during some downtime at a patrol base in Afghanistan's Helmand province. The newspaper, which throughout the last year has investigated allegations of wrongdoing involving the service's top general, has been targeted by Marine Corps headquarters as part of a new initiative to 'professionalize' areas where the publication is sold.

Marines leaf through a copy of Marine Corps Times during some downtime at a patrol base in Afghanistan’s Helmand province. The newspaper, which throughout the last year has investigated allegations of wrongdoing involving the service’s top general, has been targeted by Marine Corps headquarters as part of a new initiative to ‘professionalize’ areas where the publication is sold. (Brennan Linsley / The Associated Press)

Marine Corps leaders have ordered the independent Marine Corps Times newspaper removed from its prominent newsstand location at base exchange stores worldwide and placed instead in areas away from checkout lines, where it is harder to find and fewer copies are available.

The move raises troubling questions about motive and closely follows a directive prohibiting commanders from using budget funds to buy Marine Corps Times and a number of other publications.

Marine Corps Times is widely recognized for its comprehensive coverage of the Corps, focusing on everything from career tracks, to pay and benefits, family and spouse issues, and employment after leaving the military.

Throughout much of the past year, the paper has published dozens of articles as part of an ongoing investigation into allegations the service’s commandant, Gen. Jim Amos, abused his authority to ensure Marines were punished for an embarrassing war-zone scandal. Numerous reports have captured the attention of mainstream media outlets, including NPR, CNN and Time magazine, among several others.

Spokesmen for the commandant’s office would not answer questions about whether Amos or his staff were aware of or involved in the decision to relocate the newspaper, but a source with knowledge of the new directive said it was approved with the commandant’s knowledge.

“It is no secret [in the Pentagon] that the commandant does not like Marine Corps Times,” the source said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The commandant’s office punted all questions, including whether Amos was involved in the decision to move Marine Corps Times from prominent display in the exchanges,to Manpower & Reserve Affairs, which has oversight of the exchange. A spokeswoman for Manpower & Reserve Affairs said the paper was moved as part of a plan to “professionalize” the front of the exchanges.

As every serviceman and veteran knows, weasels exist at all levels. In this case, it is the Commandant.

***

One last bit. The ‘conservative’ rankings of Congress was released this weekend. Claire McCaskill was ranked 50 out of the 100 Senators. It’s well known that McCaskill voted with the ‘Pubs on issues that had no chance to pass, hence her rating. Missouri’s other Senator, Roy Blunt, supposedly a ‘Pub, was ranked 42, not far above liberal McCaskill. The difference is that McCaskill manipulated her votes to appear more conservative. Blunt didn’t.

I understand that primary opponents to Blunt are forming all across Missouri. It couldn’t happen to be better Senator—and that’s a point. We don’t need two liberal voting Senators and that is exactly what we have had. Time for Blunt to go back to obscurity.

Facebook

Notes: News, History, Events

Posted on by

I don’t usually listen to internet radio. All too many programs are hosted by…well, let’s just say their light bulbs aren’t screwed in very tightly. The subject of the programs are spread from one extreme to the other, left and right, liberal and conservative, communist to anarchist.

I happened to listen to one for a few minutes the other day. The premise of the subject was that the United States is inherently racist because when it was first adopted, only white, male, property owners could vote!

Contrary to the popular myth espoused by many, voting requirements were never written into the Constitution, it was left to the individual states to determine requirements for suffrage, the right to vote. Many argued in the years prior to the creation of the Constitution to put limitations on the right to vote. One of the most famous, because it supported the property-owning myth, was from Alexander Hamilton.

Alexander Hamilton – 1775

[Hamilton is quoting Blackstone’s Commentaries, bk. 1, ch. 2:]

“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

From Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-79), 1:106. — www.vindicatingthefounders.com

Some states, like New York, imposed voting and qualification limitations similar to that proposed by Hamilton.

…the 1777 New York State Constitution required that a man have considerable wealth to be able to vote for the state Assembly – he had to pay taxes as well as own property worth at least 20 pounds or pay an annual rent of 2 pounds. Ten of the original 13 states had property and/or tax requirements when the U.S. Constitution came into effect. — City University of New York.

Why did these early founders think property ownership was so important to gain suffrage? In the words of today, “it insured that they, the voters, had skin in the game.“

I don’t propose that we return to that standard for suffrage. But…think of the changes in government if we did. For one, I strongly doubt our welfare system would exist. And, the balance of power would shift from cities and urban areas to rural. Property ownership would rise…or would it?  It’s something to think about.

***

ramirez_09172013Why was the Washington Navy Yard, most military bases in fact, undefended? By the order of one man: William Jefferson Clinton.

Military bases used to be guarded by the military. When I was in the Air Force some time ago, USAF Security Police manned guard posts at all entrances. They also policed the base, just like many of the neighboring police departments, and had roving patrols of the perimeter to guard against infiltrators. SAC bases were more stringent in their precautions.

McNamara, when he was Kennedy’s and Johnson’s Secretary of Defense, proposed replacing those guards with civilian employees. The four Chiefs of Staff, the CS of the Army, Air Force, the CNO of the Navy and the Commandant of the Marines, went to Johnson and threatened to resign enmass if McNamara continued with his plan.  Johnson stopped McNamara. I never heard this in the news but it was well known in the services. Unfortunately, it was the last instance, that I know of, of interdepartmental cooperation and unity between the services.

Navy Yard Shooting Another Clinton Gun-Free Zone Fail

Posted 09/17/2013 06:04 PM ET

Security: As the usual suspects call for stricter gun control, the fact remains that a gunman with two prior gun-crime arrests entered a secure military facility with a stolen ID and found no one able to shoot back.

It was Fort Hood all over again. Aaron Alexis, a gunman whose prior behavioral warning signs were ignored, opens fire in an installation belonging to the most powerful military on Earth and those who protect our nation and design our weapons are not allowed to have a weapon to defend themselves.

He was more equipped than the 12 people he killed on the base who were not permitted to carry weapons on the base, thanks to former President Bill Clinton.

In 1993 the president issued orders that barred members of the military and their civilian contractors from carrying personal firearms on base. Even officers were disarmed under the law.

Almost as soon as Clinton assumed office, in March 1993 the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection.

That ban extends to virtually all U.S military bases and related installations.

Under the ruling enacted by the Clinton administration, there must be “a credible and specific threat against personnel” before military personnel “may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection.”

This was the reason that the Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was able to go on a rampage for a full 10 minutes in 2009 without being stopped.

This is why, at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division, a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Hasan’s terrorist rampage, to this day obscenely called “workplace violence,” denying survivors and the dead medals and benefits.

The liberal reaction to the Navy Yard massacre mirrors the reaction, after Fort Hood, of Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

He opined, “This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places.” What?

On Monday night, anchor John Roberts asked Mandy Foster, the wife of one of the soldiers shot at Fort Hood, how she felt about her husband’s upcoming deployment to Afghanistan. She responded: “At least he’s safe there and he can fire back, right?” Safer than at the Washington Navy Yard or Fort Hood.

The article continues at the website. It’s a good read and places the blame for making our military installations a target of choice for terrorists, the disgruntled, and the insane, squarely where it should—the Executive Branch of the federal government.

Bush isn’t blameless, here. he could have rescinded Clinton’s order. He did not.

Let’s also note that the Navy Yard Shooter, was a liberal and an Obama supporter. He was NOT a Bible thumping, bitter-clinging, gun-loving, white american. He was none of the popular stereotypes so loved by the state media when they blame conservatives for the nation’s ills.

The Return of the Friday Follies for February 8, 2013

Posted on by

I was in the shower this morning listening to my local conservative talk radio. They were discussing the Super Bowl ad  narrated by Paul Harvey about farmers. Following the discussion, the show mentioned a new version was available. This one however, was, “God Made a Liberal.”

 Heh, heh.

***

I’ve said that I’m a poll watcher. I spent a lot of time before the election examining polls—tearing them apart, looking at the demographics, the questions, the lib vs. conservative sampling ratios. I didn’t guess the election outcome better than anyone else although I wasn’t nearly as  confident as many of my peers.

I still examine polls. A get a newsletter from Rasmussen daily and one of his items is Obama’s daily tracking poll.  Since the election it has be hovering around the 55% approval.  Yesterday it dropped to 51%.  At the time of this writing, I haven’t received my daily email from Rasmussen but I did find this one, the Quinnipiac poll. It has Obama’s approval dropping below 50%. His approval rating now is the same as it was last April, 46%.

TREND: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as President? (*High also 59% Mar 2009)

                                                             APPROVE.......
                                                             High    Low
                     Feb 08  Dec 06  Jul 11  Apr 19  Nov 23  Jun 04  Oct 06
                     2013    2012    2012    2012    2011    2009*   2011

Approve              46      53      45      47      44      59      41
Disapprove           45      40      49      48      50      31      55
DK/NA                 9       8       6       5       6      10       4

Apparently, the higher tax rates (that Obama declared would only affect the rich,) the stagnant stock market )that Obama declared was better than ever,) the continuing increase in the cost of living—food, housing, utilities and gas (that the Obama administration has ignored,) is having a great negative impact to Obama voters. Amazing! All the predictions issued by the Right is coming to pass.

We told you so!

***

Most conservatives believed and continue to believe that Obama’s winning election strategy was based on voter fraud. We believe his success was aided, if not accomplished, through fraudulent votes. The dems claim otherwise but items like the one below continue to appear. Items that support our suspicions.

The Voter Fraud That ‘Never Happens’ Keeps Coming Back

By John Fund, February 8, 2013 9:51 A.M.
 

Critics of voter ID and other laws cracking down on voter fraud claim they’re unnecessary because fraud is nonexistent. For instance, Brennan Center attorneys Michael Waldman and Justin Levitt claimed last year: “A person casting two votes risks jail time and a fine for minimal gain. Proven voter fraud, statistically, happens about as often as death by lightning strike.”

Well, lightning is suddenly all over Cincinnati, Ohio. The Hamilton County Board of Elections is investigating 19 possible cases of alleged voter fraud that occurred when Ohio was a focal point of the 2012 presidential election. A total of 19 voters and nine witnesses are part of the probe.

Democrat Melowese Richardson has been an official poll worker for the last quarter century and registered thousands of people to vote last year. She candidly admitted to Cincinnati’s Channel 9 this week that she voted twice in the last election.

When you read further, you’ll see the dems are desparately trying to excuse the woman’s behavior. As a poll watcher, she could volunteer to observe the count of the absentee ballots. Instead, she choose to add just add another democrat vote and committed a crime.

She’ll probably get off with a hand-slap at most. She should be doing some time behind bars with a hefty fine—pour encourager les autres or “to encourage others” to not engage if further vote fraud.

Facebook

Obama’s chickeeeens have come hooome!

Posted on by

I was listening to a news item on the radio this morning and this paraphrased quote came to mind. “Obama’s chickeeeens, have come hooooome, to roost!” It seem that the Detroit city council, now that they’ve delivered 75% of Detroit’s voters to Obama, want pay-back. They’re demanding the Obama bail out their city.

Detroit councilwoman to Obama: We voted for you, now bail us out

Posted: Dec 05, 2012 6:00 AM CST, Updated: Dec 05, 2012 7:39 AM CST

DETROIT (WJBK) — The city of Detroit faces a major financial crisis and one member of city council thinks President Barack Obama should step in and help.

City Council member JoAnn Watson said Tuesday the citizens support of Obama in last month’s election was enough reason for the president to bailout the struggling the city. (Click the video player to listen)

“Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that,” said Watson. “Of course, not just that, but why not?”

Nearly 75 percent of Wayne County voters pulled the lever for Obama in November.

“After the election of Jimmy Carter, the honorable Coleman Alexander Young, he went to Washington, D.C. and came home with some bacon,” said Watson. “That’s what you do.”

I would like you to note that Councilman JoAnn Watson is NO relation of mine. Obama was re-elected, in part by promising everyone the moon. Now those voters want Obama to keep those promises.  The response from the White House on these demands is…  ** crickets…crickets **.

***

The democrats continue with their agenda to marginalize the military and military veterans. The dems added an amendment to a defense bill passing through the Senate. The amendment would allow the Veteran’s Administration to rescind veteran’s 2nd Amendment rights if those veterans are deemed “mentally incompetent” by the VA or the military services.

How long do you think it’d be before every serviceman who ever served overseas in a combat zone, or a potential combat zone, or sailed in or close to a combat zone, or flew over a combat zone, is deemed to suffer PTSD and therefore sufficient cause to prohibit them from owning and/or purchasing a firearm? Senator John McCain was upset that Senator Rand Paul promised to filibuster the amendment and threatened to vote with the dems.

Change on veterans’ gun rights lights fire

Coburn wants decisions by judge rather than VA for impaired troops

By David Sherfinski, The Washington Times, Monday, December 3, 2012A major defense-spending bill hit an unexpected bump on its journey through the U.S. Senate over an amendment on veterans’ gun rights, which devolved into a heated floor debate and foreshadows a potential battle over Democrats’ vows to tweak the filibuster rules in the clubby, traditionally collegial body.

Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, wants veterans who have been deemed “mentally incompetent” to have their cases adjudicated by a judge — rather than the Department of Veterans Affairs, as happens currently — and argued that veterans who simply cannot support themselves financially are needlessly given the label and, as such, cannot buy or possess firearms.

“We’re not asking for anything big,” Mr. Coburn said Thursday evening on the Senate floor. “We’re just saying that if you’re going to take away the Second Amendment rights … they ought to have it adjudicated, rather than mandated by someone who’s unqualified to state that they should lose their rights.”

The late-night tussle served to pick at the scab of the ongoing debate over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bid to reform the chamber’s filibuster rules to place limits on the minority party’s ability to hold up debate on legislation, however.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, objected to Mr. Coburn’s proposal once he found out it was part of a package of amendments to the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act the body was to vote on.

“I love our veterans; I vote for them all the time, they defend us,” Mr. Schumer said. “But if you are mentally ill, whether you’re a veteran or not, just like if you’re a felon, if you’re a veteran or not, and you have been judged to be mentally infirm, you should not have a gun.”

Note Senator Schumer equating veterans to felons.  The veterans have committed no crimes, other than to serve the country, but Schumer wants them treated the same as convicted felons.  The difference is that the veterans have committed no crime, never been convicted and are only declared incompetent by the VA. The veterans, under the amendment, would have no recourse—except through the VA—Judge, Jury and Executioner all in one federal agency.  Totalitarianism at its best. Veterans, call your Senators if you want to retain your 2nd Amendment rights. Your 1st Amendment rights are under fire from the dems as well.

Facebook

Amazing!

Posted on by

Did you know there is a mayor of an American city who is winning the battle against public service unions? No, it’s not Chris Christie nor Scott Walker.

This mayor “has been carrying out a program of privatizing city jobs, laying off unionized municipal employees and contracting out the work to vendors, who hire nonunion people to do the jobs of a few dollars an hour less than the city employees earned.” This mayor, “pushes around poorly paid members on not just any union, but the very SEIU itself, and the general public hears nothing about it.”

A xxxxxxx neighborhood publication, Our Urban Times, tells the story, using the case of more than fifty recently laid-off library janitors who complete [the Mayor’s] privatization drive in the xxxxxxx’s Department of Fleet and Facility Management (2FM). There is no doubt that the janitors are ideal candidates to be characterized as victims of a heartless and ruthless rich politician. The new working arrangements push several union buttons:

Their rates to the employee tend to be at least four dollars under the $11.90 to $15.90 workers are currently being paid. Further more [sic] they hire people on a part time basis and do not have to provide benefits, according to [Secretary-Treasurer of SEIU Local 73 Matt] Brandon.

There heart-rending stories of suffering by minorities during the holiday waiting for the MSNBC cameras, if only they would come:

“We took furlough days when they asked us to. That cost me $4,000 over three years. Our contract says we are to get a 90-day notice for termination. We got one day. I’m very concerned.  I don’t know what I am going to do and Ihave bills to pay,” said Glenda Thomas, a 17-year employee.

Do you know who the mayor is? And the city?  It’s Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago.

***

Speaking of Rahm Emanuel, he just made this comment about the newly released movie, Lincoln.

(CNSNews.com) — Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the former chief of staff to President Barack Obama,  likened Obama’s values and “ability to see a clear road where everybody just sees fog” to President Abraham Lincoln as depicted in the 2012 Steven Spielberg movie “Lincoln.” — CNS News.

The dems and academia continue to push the myth that democrats supported African-Americans while  vilifying Republicans. Recently this came out of the White House, “Obama Aide: With These Republicans, ‘There’d Still be Slavery’ Today.”

Contrary to what is being taught today, the Republican Party was created by the spin-off of the Abolitionist faction within the Whig Party.

The United States Republican Party is the second oldest currently existing political party in the US after its great rival, the Democratic Party. It emerged in 1854 to combat the Kansas Nebraska Act which threatened to extend slavery into the territories, and to promote more vigorous modernization of the economy. It had almost no presence in the South, but by 1858 in the North it had enlisted former Whigs and former Free Soil Democrats to form majorities in nearly every Northern state.

With its election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, and its success in guiding the Union to victory and abolishing slavery, it came to dominate the national scene until 1932. The Republican Party was based on northern white Protestants, businessmen, professionals, factory workers, farmers, and African-Americans. It was pro-business, supporting banks, the gold standard, railroads, and tariffs to protect industrial workers and industry. — Wiki.

The Democrat Party dominated the South and pushed through bills of Secession through the Southern Statehouses. The Democrat Party created the Confederate States to preserve slavery.

Those democrat political agendas continued well into the Twentieth Century. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, not due to the democrats who opposed it, but due to the Republican Party. It was Republican Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL) and Thomas Kuchel (R-CA) with the support of some northern democrats who finally broke the democrat filibuster and sent the bill to Johnson to be signed.

So the next time you come across some mouthy democrat saying the ‘Pubs want to return to slavery, just remember who ended slavery and passed the civil rights acts of the 1960s. It wasn’t the democrats.

Facebook

Ingratitude!

Posted on by

There is a story coming out of New Jersey this morning that really steams me. We know New Jersey is a haven for dems, liberals and bloodsucking unions.  That sentiment extends as well to some municipalities.  Late last night, reports began to appear that some cities in New Jersey were turning away out-of-state repair crews—because they weren’t in a union.

Nonunion Ala. crews turned away from Sandy recovery

Posted: Nov 01, 2012 10:05 PM CDT Updated: Nov 02, 2012 8:43 AM CDT
By WAFF.com Staff

(Source: Derrick Moore) SEASIDE HEIGHTS, NEW JERSEY (WAFF) –

The hurricane-ravaged east coast has been receiving north Alabama help, but crews learned they’ll be doing work in Long Island, New York instead of in New Jersey.

Crews from Decatur Utilities headed up there this week, but Derrick Moore, one of the Decatur workers, said they were told by crews in New Jersey that they can’t do any work there since they’re not union employees.

The crews that are in Roanoke, Virginia say they are just watching and waiting even though they originally received a call asking for help from Seaside Heights, New Jersey.

Understandably, Moore said they’re frustrated being told “thanks, but no thanks.”

Nothing like ingratitude in New Jersey. In New York City, it is worse. Mayor Bloomberg is diverting relief supplies intended for repairs and the residents to—the New York Marathon. It’s perfectly find for Bloomberg to let his constituency sit in the dark without food, water and utilities as long as the Marathon is not hindered.

Bloomberg Diverts Food, Generators from Devastated Staten Island to NYC Marathon

by Michael Patrick Leahy 1 Nov 2012

Fresh off his “climate disruption”-driven endorsement of President Obama, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has chosen to divert critical food supplies and power generators from desperate residents of Staten Island to Sunday’s New York City Marathon. Gothamist reports: 

[T]hose urging the city to halt the run believe that the thousands of Marathon volunteers could direct their efforts towards post-Sandy relief and cleanup, “and they also argue that the event will divert thousands of police from important hurricane-related duties.” But despite petitions circulating, work started up again yesterday on the Marathon route.

A tipster, who wishes to remain anonymous, told us there were lots of workers in and out of the park today, who had “started before the storm and then came back starting yesterday.” Trailers are lined up from around 71st to 66th Streets on Central Park West, a food truck was set up today, and “generators have been sitting there at least a week.” The tents that were taken down prior to the storm have also been set back up, and there is a stage set up near 73rd Street.

Considering all the volunteer help and NYPD attention that’s already being diverted to the Marathon, the added sight of generators and food being channeled to the event is probably going to strike some New Yorkers as a little misplaced—we’re thinking of the ones who are currently lined up waiting for the National Guard to ration out MREs and bottles of water.

Staten Island residents are frantically calling for help, ABC News reported on Thursday.

Democrats, read this and learn. Your party leadership doesn’t care about you. You are only a tool to be used to get your liberal leaders whatever they want. In this case, it’s the Mayor’s Marathon. When you’re used up, they’ll toss you aside. They did that with Obamacare.

Here you are. A life-long faithful democrat. You’ve voted the party line all that time. You belong to a union. You think your party and your union with take care of you. That’s the big lie.

When you retire, you find your Social Security payments aren’t enough for you to maintain your standard of living. Your union pension fund has been leveraged so much that when it’s your turn, you get less than expected. If you are a retired public employee, your pension may not exist if your state, like California, is about to go bankrupt. And Medicare? Now you discover it’s been destroyed by Obamacare and when you really need medical care…you’re too old and your care is too expensive. Just go off somewhere and die.

Remember the lessons of ingratitude from New York and New Jersey. Socialism doesn’t work. Unionism doesn’t work either. Unions are a scam to siphon your union dues into the union leadership’s pocket and to be used for their benefit, not yours.

Wake up! Vote Republican. Toss out the parasites; the liberal oligarchy at all government levels and seize your future with your own hands. You are the first step in national recovery. Do so by tossing the liberals out of office.

Facebook

ABC…Anybody but Claire

Posted on by

Todd Akin, depending on the poll, is within 2pts of Claire McCaskill. I’m told there are still some conservatives who don’t know for whom they’ll vote. Frankly, I find that hard to believe for true conservatives. I’d expect that response from those who reflect the views of whomever they are around at that moment. Chameleons may be a better description.

McCaskill is trying to market herself as a moderate. The truth is she’s no where near a moderate. Not with a voting record that supports Obama and Harry Reid 98% of the time.

But, for those of you who are really undecided, let’s sift the facts on Claire’s record. Here’s a list of issues and McCaskill’s stance on them. (From OnTheIssues.org)

Abortion:

  • Support embryonic stem cell research but not cloning. (Oct 2006)
  • Support a ban on partial-birth abortion. (Oct 2006)
  • Continue promising stem-cell research. (May 2006)
  • Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies. (Mar 2009)
  • Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
  • Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
  • Provide emergency contraception at military facilities. (Apr 2007)
  • Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)
  • Emergency contraception at all military health facilities. (Dec 2009)

You’ll notice that she was against the Partial-Birth Abortion ban. However, that was in 2006 during an interview on Meet The Press with Tim Russert , Oct 8, 2006. Since being elected to the US Senate, however, she has voted FOR every abortion issue and against restricting abortion. There’s a disconnect between what Claire says…or said in this case, and what she actually does—her voting record once in office.

Budget and the Economy:

  • Take on sacred cows that gave us $8 trillion debt. (Oct 2006)
  • $300 billion in Iraq is a lot of money. (Oct 2006)
  • Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
  • Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (May 2009)
  • Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Feb 2009)
  • Voted NO on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
  • Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
  • Require full disclosure about subprime mortgages. (Dec 2007)
  • Ban abusive credit practices & enhance consumer disclosure. (Feb 2009)

 The disconnect with Claire’s word and her actions continue when it’s the economy. You’ll notice in the bullet points above a difference when George Bush was President and when Claire was elected Missouri’s Senator. In 2006 she was against more spending—especially when it was for the war in Iraq. Once in office she made a 180° turn. In office she voted against paying down the federal debt (2007), voted for more stimulus spending (2009), and voted for legislation on mortgage “abuses” that provided more federal taxpayer money to support underwater mortgages.

In fact if you examine Claire’s voting record, every vote that was the least bit “moderate” was one where the outcome was already decided. In otherwise a safe vote where Claire’s “moderate” vote had no effect on the outcome.

Let’s continue with McCaskill’s record.

Corporations:

  • Limit TARP recipients’ executive compensation to $400,000. (May 2010
  • Rated 86% by UFCW, indicating an anti-management/pro-labor record. (May 2012)

Like all liberals, they refuse to acknowledge how and why corporate executives are paid.  Executives are paid for performance. They are given goals by the corporation’s Board of Directors and if those executives meet those goals, they are well paid—with a good salary, bonuses and stock options. It’s not easy to meet those corporate goals. That’s why the tenures of a CEO is short, a handful of years in most cases. Why? Because the first time that CEO fails to meet his goals, he’s out the door. 

If you limit his compensation, like McCaskill voted, what is the incentive for that CEO? He knows he won’t stay long as CEO. That’s the nature of business—perform or you’re out. So he’s expected to work and work hard with no incentive?

No, he won’t. He’ll go where he can be paid for what he’s worth.  Only the ignorant believes otherwise—or those who refuse to understand the nature of business. Business exists for profit. Without profit, the business will cease to exist. It’s the CEO’s task to insure that profit or get fired.

Let’s look at McCaskill’s stance on energy.

  • Energy independence by 2020 via alternative fuels. (May 2006)
  • Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
  • Voted YES on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax. (Apr 2009)
  • Voted YES on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade. (Apr 2009)
  • Voted YES on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
  • Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
  • Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)

Again, McCaskill voted for initiatives that hurt the economy unless it was a safe vote. She voted against banning excesses by the EPA (2011), voted for Federal support (and taxes) for Global Warming (2007), voted for Cap ‘n Tax (2008), and supported the so-call Green Initiatives and have been a financial disaster (2008).

Finally, let’s examine McCaskill’s record on Healthcare and Obamacare.

  • Opposes annual limit on federal Medicare spending. (Sep 2006)
  • Expand Medicare for people, not for drug companies. (May 2006)
  • Negotiate for lower Rx prices and re-importation. (May 2006)
  • Uncovering Medicaid waste reduces cost of medicine. (Dec 2005)
  • Voted NO on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts. (May 2011)
  • Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Jun 2009)
  • Voted YES on expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
  • Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
  • Voted YES on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on allowing tribal Indians to opt out of federal healthcare. (Feb 2008)
  • Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Nov 2007)
  • Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
  • Establish a national childhood cancer database. (Mar 2007)
  • Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn. (Apr 2008)
  • Disclose payments from manufacturers to physicians. (Jan 2009)

Once again, McCaskill followed the liberal party line. Her stance before being elected to the Senate in 2006 was decidedly different after being elected. Before, she was in favor of curbing Medicare costs, afterward, it was curbing Medicare benefits.When she voted for Obamacare, she robbed Medicare to $700billion to feed the Obamacare monster. Note, too, that 70% of Missouri voters voted against Obamacare (Prop C). That didn’t deter McCaskill at all. She ignored Missouri’s vote against Obamacare and voted the dem party line.

She voted to allow the Indian Tribes to opt out of Obamacare when you could not. She voted for Medicare cuts and more limitations on Medicare reimbursement for Physicians, Hospitals and Drugs forcing many Physicians and private hospital to refuse any new Medicare patients while driving up the cost of healthcare for individuals. In addition, she voted against Paul Ryan’s Medicare Reform plan.

When you examine Claire McCaskill’s record, there is nothing moderate about it. Yes, she did vote on occasion to support some conservative issues like gun control, but if you look at the actual vote in the Senate, those issues already had a clear outcome. McCaskill just hitched a ride to ease her opposition at home in Missouri.

Claire McCaskill is a liberal. Worse, she’s a lying liberal who attempts to mask her true nature. When you enter the voting booth next week. Vote NO against McCaskill and FOR Todd Akin. Akin, considering all his foibles, is still a true conservative—one who won’t sell his vote for expediency or personal gain.

Facebook