To be fair, everyone makes stupid statements now and then. You either misspeak, confuse facts, or experience some other form of cognitive dissonance. But lately we have been treated to s stream of stupid emanating from the political Left, the group who has decided that they are the smart ones, the ones who should be making our decisions for us, since we might not choose correctly.
Today's exercise in opening one's mouth and removing all doubt comes to us from our good friend Chucky Schumer, (D, NY). The senior senator from the Great State of New York informs us peons that contrary to what most of us learned in junior high school or elementary school civics classes, the three branches of the United States federal government are the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.
Silly me! For some reason I always thought the three branches were the Legislative, the Judicial, and the Executive. Somewhere along the line I picked up the idea that the House and the Senate together comprised the Legislative branch of the government.
The level of stupid flowing out of the Democrat party these days is stunning. From the shockingly stupid statements from Hank Johnson (D, GA) regarding his fear that Guam might "tip over and capsize" to the firehose of stupid we are treated to flowing from the benighted representative from Houston TX, Shelia Jackson Lee, all the way up to our own Dear Leader thinking that Austrians speak "Austrian" or that the "P" in corpsmen is silent, the Democrats seem to have cornered the market in pure unadulterated dumb.
These are the people who know better than the rest of us, right?
Monday, January 31, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Just do it!
Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie has been making waves lately, making claims about Barack Obama's original long-form birth certificate. He had claimed that he knew for a fact that it existed, and that he was going to use his powers as Governor to produce it. He was going to put an end to all the controversy and show up those stupid "Birthers" for the idiots all of Obama's supporters believe they are.
Today, 1/26/11, a story surfaced that Gov. Abercrombie had admittd to a journolist friend of his, Mike Evans, that there are no official birth records for the President in Hawaii. This story was linked on the Drudge report. Suddenly it appears, Gov. Abercombie has egg on his face. No birth certificate?!? Could the Birthers actually be onto something?
But wait! Several hours after the story appeared, a chastened Mike Evans now claims that he never spoke to Gov. Abercrombie about this. Hmmmm. If that's the case, why did it take nearly 6 hours for the so-called correction to appear? Curiouser and curiouser....
The bottom line is this, and I say this with due respect: Gov. Abercrombie needs to put up, or shut up. If he has access to the documents in question, produce them. Otherwise, he needs to apologize to the millions of people he has maligned with the soubriquet "Birthers".
Well, Governor? We're all waiting.
Today, 1/26/11, a story surfaced that Gov. Abercrombie had admittd to a journolist friend of his, Mike Evans, that there are no official birth records for the President in Hawaii. This story was linked on the Drudge report. Suddenly it appears, Gov. Abercombie has egg on his face. No birth certificate?!? Could the Birthers actually be onto something?
But wait! Several hours after the story appeared, a chastened Mike Evans now claims that he never spoke to Gov. Abercrombie about this. Hmmmm. If that's the case, why did it take nearly 6 hours for the so-called correction to appear? Curiouser and curiouser....
The bottom line is this, and I say this with due respect: Gov. Abercrombie needs to put up, or shut up. If he has access to the documents in question, produce them. Otherwise, he needs to apologize to the millions of people he has maligned with the soubriquet "Birthers".
Well, Governor? We're all waiting.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Repub-Lickin's getting played
Tonight is the State of the Union address, and the news media is all a-twitter about how the Repubs and Dems will be sitting together in a show of "unity". To hear them tell it, we're just about 5 minutes away from a truly wretch-inducing chorus of Kumbaya.
Whats really happening is that the Dhimmicrats are taking control of the situation. They are attempting to show the world that the fighting is over, and there is no longer any need for the "heated rhetoric" that characterized the Tea Party; and by "heated rhetoric" they mean calls to follow the Constitution.
Naive Repbulicans are going along with them, holdiong hands and playing nice. They don't realize that the Dhimmi's hold them in utter contempt, and once again they are acting like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, and the Dhimmicrats will yank the it away at the last moment.
Republicans: The Dhimmicrats are NOT your friends. They have no interest in a "culture of civility". They are interested in ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY: advancing their socialist agenda. They are trying to take your balls from you and make you like it, and sadly, I think they may succeed again.
Whats really happening is that the Dhimmicrats are taking control of the situation. They are attempting to show the world that the fighting is over, and there is no longer any need for the "heated rhetoric" that characterized the Tea Party; and by "heated rhetoric" they mean calls to follow the Constitution.
Naive Repbulicans are going along with them, holdiong hands and playing nice. They don't realize that the Dhimmi's hold them in utter contempt, and once again they are acting like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, and the Dhimmicrats will yank the it away at the last moment.
Republicans: The Dhimmicrats are NOT your friends. They have no interest in a "culture of civility". They are interested in ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY: advancing their socialist agenda. They are trying to take your balls from you and make you like it, and sadly, I think they may succeed again.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
The Dumbest Representative
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) said "Can you tell me what’s more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their Fourteenth Amendment rights, and the right to equal protection under the law?" on House floor today, 1/18/2011.
Now, granted, a congressman needs to keep abreast of a lot of issues, and be educated on a lot of various things. But wouldn't you think the various amendments to the Constitution would be pretty much near the top of the list of things they should be familiar with?
In case you're not a Congressman or otherwise unfamiliar with the amendments, the 5th amendment protects you from self-incrimination. When someone says "I'll take the Fifth" and refuses to answer a question in court, this is what they're referring to. It also provides that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The 14th amendment defines citizenship, and protects a person's civil rights. It also addresses "equal protection under the law", so that explains that connection, at least. But what that has to do with repealing Obamacare is beyond me.
Now, granted, a congressman needs to keep abreast of a lot of issues, and be educated on a lot of various things. But wouldn't you think the various amendments to the Constitution would be pretty much near the top of the list of things they should be familiar with?
In case you're not a Congressman or otherwise unfamiliar with the amendments, the 5th amendment protects you from self-incrimination. When someone says "I'll take the Fifth" and refuses to answer a question in court, this is what they're referring to. It also provides that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The 14th amendment defines citizenship, and protects a person's civil rights. It also addresses "equal protection under the law", so that explains that connection, at least. But what that has to do with repealing Obamacare is beyond me.
Answering Krugman
Paul Krugman is smearing the Right again in his column from 1/14/11, carefully dropping nuggets of narrative into his prose. In addition to building upon and relying upon stereotypes (which, by the way, are inaccurate), he throws out the old liberal chestnut about society's "winners".
In his article, he says "...one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net..." as if accumulating wealth in this country is based upon random chance. If that were the case, his arguments might have some merit. (or not - remember, this is Krugman we're talking about)
Sadly, Krugman is echoing the view of a lot of the Left. Not themselves, of course; they worked hard for what they've earned. But others must have come into their wealth through luck, good fortune, or just pure whimsy.
Because Lady Luck has supposedly smiled upon them, they should be happy to be able to have part of their money taken from them at implied gunpoint, and a portion of it handed out to the so-called poor -- after Government takes it's slice, of course.
He then goes on to impugn the morality of those on the right, who would dare to insist that what they have earned should be theirs to keep, or donate as they see fit, without being coerced or threatened.
This is a case of projection on the part of the Left, believing that, as a country, we would allow people to starve in the street. Krugman is projecting his own Leftism onto others. The Conservatives he claims are immoral are proven to be far more generous in their giving to charities than Liberals, not requiring force to be applied to help others.
He then proceeds to mangle and malign history, claiming this is all a recent development, that at one time the Republicans accepted and supported the Welfare state, and were even willing to expand it.
My question to Mr Krugman would be "Why do you view roping more people into a system that breeds hopelessness and despair to be a more moral path?" Of course, it isn't, but it would greatly expand the rolls of "locked in" Democrat voters.
In his article, he says "...one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net..." as if accumulating wealth in this country is based upon random chance. If that were the case, his arguments might have some merit. (or not - remember, this is Krugman we're talking about)
Sadly, Krugman is echoing the view of a lot of the Left. Not themselves, of course; they worked hard for what they've earned. But others must have come into their wealth through luck, good fortune, or just pure whimsy.
Because Lady Luck has supposedly smiled upon them, they should be happy to be able to have part of their money taken from them at implied gunpoint, and a portion of it handed out to the so-called poor -- after Government takes it's slice, of course.
He then goes on to impugn the morality of those on the right, who would dare to insist that what they have earned should be theirs to keep, or donate as they see fit, without being coerced or threatened.
This is a case of projection on the part of the Left, believing that, as a country, we would allow people to starve in the street. Krugman is projecting his own Leftism onto others. The Conservatives he claims are immoral are proven to be far more generous in their giving to charities than Liberals, not requiring force to be applied to help others.
He then proceeds to mangle and malign history, claiming this is all a recent development, that at one time the Republicans accepted and supported the Welfare state, and were even willing to expand it.
My question to Mr Krugman would be "Why do you view roping more people into a system that breeds hopelessness and despair to be a more moral path?" Of course, it isn't, but it would greatly expand the rolls of "locked in" Democrat voters.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Libs once again not thinking things though
Ron Reagan Jr is at it again. In typical despicable fashion, he once again attacks the dead Ronald Reagan, attempting to smear his name in the annals of history.
After reading the story over on US News.com reviewing Ron Reagan Jr's new book in which he claims that Ronald Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer's disease while still President, I was struck by the idea that Ron and other liberals in the Greek chorus soon to pick up his story probably haven't considered.
To wit: That if his anecdotal claims are true (which I don't believe they are) then even with diminished faculties, Reagan was still a more honorable, effective, and better liked President than any of Left's recent offerings.
After reading the story over on US News.com reviewing Ron Reagan Jr's new book in which he claims that Ronald Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer's disease while still President, I was struck by the idea that Ron and other liberals in the Greek chorus soon to pick up his story probably haven't considered.
To wit: That if his anecdotal claims are true (which I don't believe they are) then even with diminished faculties, Reagan was still a more honorable, effective, and better liked President than any of Left's recent offerings.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Obama at Tucson
Ken wrote:
>Judging from the reader comments left
>on CNN, Fox, etc. very few people,
>on either side, got the point of the presidents
>speech last night. It is time to dial down
>the rhetoric. There is so much bullshit flying
>back and forth the real issues are getting lost in the splatter.
I didn't listen to Comrade Bambi last night. The hypocrisy of a close friend of *unrepentant* bomber Bill Ayers and 20 year member of Jeremiah Wright's "Church of Hate Whitey", telling me to eschew violent rhetoric, would just be too much to bear.
But the rhetoric has ALWAYS been hot. These folks wishing for calm, measured tone in a civil debate from times gone by aren't remembering clearly.
Every age has had it's verbal violence, and sometimes it's physical violence as well. The country was born in a violent revolution. Since then, people have been attacking each other verbally.
Look up some of the rhetoric employed by Jefferson and Adams when they were competing for the Presidency. Then moving forward from there, throughout our history.
I'm not condoning or excusing it, I'm saying it's human nature, and that's the way it's always going to be.
>Judging from the reader comments left
>on CNN, Fox, etc. very few people,
>on either side, got the point of the presidents
>speech last night. It is time to dial down
>the rhetoric. There is so much bullshit flying
>back and forth the real issues are getting lost in the splatter.
I didn't listen to Comrade Bambi last night. The hypocrisy of a close friend of *unrepentant* bomber Bill Ayers and 20 year member of Jeremiah Wright's "Church of Hate Whitey", telling me to eschew violent rhetoric, would just be too much to bear.
But the rhetoric has ALWAYS been hot. These folks wishing for calm, measured tone in a civil debate from times gone by aren't remembering clearly.
Every age has had it's verbal violence, and sometimes it's physical violence as well. The country was born in a violent revolution. Since then, people have been attacking each other verbally.
Look up some of the rhetoric employed by Jefferson and Adams when they were competing for the Presidency. Then moving forward from there, throughout our history.
I'm not condoning or excusing it, I'm saying it's human nature, and that's the way it's always going to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)