This Is For the Liberals of Elk Co. & Beyond

[Warph]

       

The Truth about Our Current Economy

The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:


January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.  At the time:

**The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

**The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

**The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

**George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH


Remember the day...January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee!

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!


Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?.... OBAMA!

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie   OBAMA and the Democrat Congress!

So when someone tries to blame Bush...

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!


Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 was the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office.  At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time?  He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009!


If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets.  That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending.  After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.  In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is "I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th".

[Warph]

A man goes into the hospital for a vasectomy. Before the procedure a

very attractive nurse comes in and takes his vitals, then tells him to

take all of his clothes off.

When he is fully undressed she instructs him to lie down on the

table. The man obeys. The nurse then takes all of her clothes off and

climbs on top and has her way with him.

Upon the completion of the act the man catches his breath and asks

what that was all about. The nurse informs the patient that studies

have shown that before a vasectomy if the man has an ejaculation, he

will be more relaxed and that the cord is easier for the surgeon to

locate and sever, thereby making the surgery safer, more efficient and quicker.

The nurse then wheels the patient to the operating room.

While they are going down the hall the patient looks through a window

to the right and sees six men in a room masturbating.

Curious, the man asks," What are they doing in there"?

The nurse responds, " They're preparing for vasectomies too,


but you have Blue Cross, and they have ObumaCare."


   

[Warph]

     

Obama's Signature Move: Unsealing Private Records
By Ann Coulter
8/1/2012

Mitt Romney presents one enormous problem for Barack Obama's campaign: No divorce records. That's why the media are so hot to get their hands on Romney's tax records for the past 25 years. They need something to "pick through, distort and lie about" -- as the Republican candidate says.

Obama's usual campaign method, used in 100 percent of his races, has been to pry into the private records of his opponents.

Democrats aren't going to find any personal dirt on the clean-cut Mormon, so they need complicated tax filings going back decades in order to create the illusion of scandal out of boring financial records.

Romney has already released his 2010 tax return and is about to release his 2011 return. After all the huffing and puffing by the media demanding those returns, the follow-up story vanished remarkably quickly when the only thing the return showed was that Romney pays millions of dollars in taxes and gives a lot of money to charity.

Let's take a romp down memory lane and review the typical Obama campaign strategy. Obama became a U.S. senator only by virtue of David Axelrod's former employer, the Chicago Tribune, ripping open the sealed divorce records of Obama's two principal opponents.

One month before the 2004 Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate, Obama was down in the polls, about to lose to Blair Hull, a multimillionaire securities trader. But then the Chicago Tribune leaked the claim that Hull's second ex-wife, Brenda Sexton, had sought an order of protection against him during their 1998 divorce proceedings.

Those records were under seal, but as The New York Times noted: "The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had 'worked aggressively behind the scenes' to push the story." Many people said Axelrod had "an even more significant role -- that he leaked the initial story."

Both Hull and his ex-wife opposed releasing their sealed divorce records, but they finally relented in response to the media's hysteria -- 18 days before the primary. Hull was forced to spend four minutes of a debate detailing the abuse allegation in his divorce papers, explaining that his ex-wife "kicked me in the leg and I hit her shin to try to get her to not continue to kick me."

After having held a substantial lead just a month before the primary, Hull's campaign collapsed with the chatter about his divorce. Obama sailed to the front of the pack and won the primary. Hull finished third with 10 percent of the vote.

As luck would have it, Obama's opponent in the general election had also been divorced! Jack Ryan was tall, handsome, Catholic -- and shared a name with one of Harrison Ford's most popular onscreen characters! He went to Dartmouth, Harvard Law and Harvard Business School, made hundreds of millions of dollars as a partner at Goldman Sachs, and then, in his early 40s, left investment banking to teach at an inner city school on the South Side of Chicago.

Ryan would have walloped Obama in the Senate race. But at the request of -- again -- the Chicago Tribune, California Judge Robert Schnider unsealed the custody papers in Ryan's divorce five years earlier from Hollywood starlet Jeri Lynn Ryan, the bombshell Borg on "Star Trek: Voyager."

Jack Ryan had released his tax records. He had released his divorce records. But both he and his ex-wife sought to keep the custody records under seal to protect their son.

Amid the 400 pages of filings from the custody case, Jack Ryan claimed that his wife had had an affair, and she counterclaimed with the allegation that he had taken her to "sex clubs" in Paris, New York and New Orleans, which drove her to fall in love with another man.

(Republicans: If you plan a career in public office, please avoid marrying a wacko.)

Ryan had vehemently denied her allegations at the time, but it didn't matter. The sex club allegations aired on "Entertainment Tonight," "NBC Nightly News," ABC's "Good Morning America," "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno," and NBC's "Today" show. CNN covered the story like it was the first moon landing.

(Interestingly, international papers also were ablaze with the story -- the same newspapers that were supposed to be so bored with American sexual mores during Bill Clinton's sex scandal.)

Four days after Judge Schnider unsealed the custody records, Ryan dropped out of the race for the horror of (allegedly) propositioning his own wife and then taking "no" for an answer.

Alan Keyes stepped in as a last-minute Republican candidate.

And that's how Obama became a U.S. senator. He destroyed both his Democratic primary opponent and his Republican general election opponent with salacious allegations about their personal lives taken from "sealed" court records.

Obama's team delved into Sarah Palin's marriage and spread rumors of John McCain's alleged affair in 2008 and they smeared Herman Cain in 2011 with hazy sexual harassment allegations all emanating from David Axelrod's pals in Chicago.

It's almost like a serial killer's signature. Unsealed personal records have been released to the press. Obama must be running for office!

So you can see what a pickle the Obama campaign is in having to run against a Dudley Do-Right, non-drinking, non-smoking, God-fearing, happily married Mormon.

They've got to get their hands on thousands of pages of Romney's tax filings so that the media can -- as Romney says -- lie about them. It will be interesting to see if Obama can pick the lock of the famously guarded IRS.

[Warph]

        


Harry Reid and the Romney tax slander
By: John Hayward
8/1/2012 09:09 AM


In an interview with the Huffington Post published on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed that an anonymous Bain Capital investor called his office and said of presidential candidate Mitt Romney, "Harry, he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years!"

Reid described himself as mildly skeptical of this remarkable claim. "Now, do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain. But obviously he can't release those tax returns. How would it look? You guys have said his wealth is $250 million. Not a chance in the world. It's a lot more than that. I mean, you do pretty well if you don't pay taxes for 10 years when you're making millions and millions of dollars."

Well, he's got a point there. Just ask Treasury Secretary Tim "Turbo Tax" Geithner, or any of the other three dozen tax cheats working for the Obama Administration. Or maybe one of the tax cheats who scooped up $1.4 billion in mortgage loans backed by the Obama "stimulus." Or perhaps one of the tax cheats who raked in $24 billion in "stimulus" loot while owing a total of $757 million back taxes.

As the Washington Times reported in May 2011, "One construction company that won multiple awards of money under President Obama's 2009 stimulus program was delinquent on its federal tax bill to the tune of $700,000, even as a company executive was blowing hundreds of thousands of dollars at casinos." That guy obviously knows all about living the high life while dodging taxes. Maybe he could discuss it with Harry Reid over a stimulus-funded lunch.

Or maybe Reid should pick up the tab. He can afford it, having raked in over a million bucks on a shady land deal in 2004, key details of which he concealed from Congress. "The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to [longtime friend and casino lawyer Jay Brown's] company without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years later," an Associated Press report explained in 2006. Is that what you had in mind when you mentioned "doing pretty well if you don't pay taxes," Mr. Reid?

Dan Primack of Fortune lowered the boom on Reid's effort to slander Romney with weaponized gossip: "One of two things has happened: (1) Reid is simply making the whole thing up, in order to pressure Romney into releasing tax returns for years prior to 2010, or (2) Reid's investor pal lied, and the Senator didn't bother to conduct even a mild vetting before sharing the accusation with reporters. Either way, shame on gossipy gentleman from Nevada."

"Let me make this crystal clear," Primack continued. "Investors in private equity funds do not receive, nor are they entitled to request, personal tax returns for fund managers. Not just at Bain Capital, but everywhere. For example, ask the person managing your 401(k) for their personal tax returns. See how far you get."

Primack went on to note that Romney hasn't even been managing Bain funds for the past ten years, and that Bain doesn't prepare tax returns for its partners in-house, so Reid's source couldn't be someone who just happened to find Romney's tax returns lying on a fax machine. Not that it seems terribly likely that a prosperous executive risking gigantic penalties, and possibly jail time, by cheating on his taxes for ten years would leave the evidence that could destroy him lying on a fax machine at the office.

Amusingly, when Primack rang up Harry Reid's office to challenge his wild claims, a staffer told him to interview Reid's anonymous source... who, of course, Reid will not identify.

There is a third possibility Primack didn't consider: Harry Reid is not playing with a full deck. It's possible his "source" for the rumor was the stapler on his desk, or a sinister giant rabbit who claims to have time-traveled back from the future to help Reid escape the impending collapse of a tangent universe.

Here's how Reid assessed his chances of remaining Majority Leader, in the same Huffington Post interview: "We feel comfortable in the Senate. Where the problem is, is this: Because of the Citizens United decision, Karl Rove and the Republicans are looking forward to a breakfast the day after the election. They are going to assemble 17 angry old white men for breakfast, some of them will slobber in their food, some will have scrambled eggs, some will have oatmeal, their teeth are gone. But these 17 angry old white men will say, 'Hey, we just bought America. Wasn't so bad. We still have a whole lot of money left."

That's the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, folks. That's the guy who hasn't been able to cough out a budget for our immense federal government in three and a half years. He's holding the American middle class hostage, and getting ready to body-slam the recessionary Obama economy with the biggest tax increases in modern history, in the name of class warfare. But he's got plenty of time to float nasty rumors about his political opponents. No wonder Washington is such a disaster.

             

Contrary to Harry Reid's wild fantasies, it won't be 17 angry old white men slobbering into their breakfast trays who decide if America has to suffer through another Congress with this disgraceful Majority Leader. It's you. If voters put a Democrat majority in charge of the Senate again, the fault will lie not in our scrambled eggs, but in ourselves.   

[Warph]

Why are liberals so intolerant?
posted at 1:16 pm on August 1, 2012 by Rob Bluey



Mike Huckabee, the Family Research Council and others have declared this Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. And while Americans should head to the chicken-sandwich restaurant to show their support, they should also take the opportunity to reflect on the intolerant left.

Watching liberals react to Dan Cathy's comments on marriage and family over the past two weeks revealed their real agenda: shut down and silence anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Big-city mayors from Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., vowed to use their political clout to keep Chick-fil-A out of their cities. When the company's top spokesman died unexpectedly last week, one liberal friend of mine declared on Facebook, "Oh, karma, you crafty bitch."

I thought liberals were the ones preaching tolerance?

The Chick-fil-A kerfuffle helped clarify a point conservatives have been making for years. Liberals are interested in debate only when they're winning. And on the issue of marriage, they're 0-for-32 in states that have put the question to voters:
http://www.heritage.org/events/2012/07/marriage-on-the-ballot
"Following North Carolina's overwhelmingly pro-marriage vote in May, several other states will consider measures related to the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Voters in Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington will see marriage on the ballot come November - even as the legal battle over California's Proposition 8 appears headed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Will these voters follow the lead of the 32 states to date that have affirmed marriage? How does President Obama's announcement of his support for same-sex marriage affect the debate? What's at stake for the institution of marriage when Americans go to the polls in November?"


That offers some explanation why mayors Tom Menino, Rahm Emanuel, Ed Lee and Vincent Gray promised to punish Cathy because of his differing view on marriage. What's scary, though, is that individuals with this much clout think it's appropriate to use that power to exact the punishment.

Never mind that Chick-fil-A takes no position on homosexual marriage, a point the company reiterated during the media firestorm. It didn't matter. Liberal journalists fanned the flames by deeming Cathy's comments endorsing the "biblical definition of the family unit" as anti-gay.

And to make matters worse for the mayors, Chick-fil-A hires employees and serves customers without regard to their sexual orientation. So in this case, the only people discriminating are the mayors.

Sadly, this is a trend that's played out too frequently of late.

Liberals used the same tactics they're now employing against Chick-fil-A earlier this summer to attack University of Texas professor Mark Regnerus. He published one of the most comprehensive studies examining the outcomes for adult children whose parents had same-sex relationships. Rather than learn from Regnerus' study or debate its findings, activists instead have sought to destroy his credibility and banish him from public discourse.

There's even an ongoing inquiry to examine his work. Anyone can request such a probe of the University of Texas. In this case, it came from provocateur Scott Rosensweig, who uses the pseudonym Scott Rose. He claims "scientific and scholarly misconduct" on the part of Regnerus and has made it a top priority to discredit and silence the professor.

Rosensweig isn't alone. A group of 200 scholars wrote a letter to the editor of Social Science Research, where the Regnerus study was published, questioning how the journal could print such a thing. The publication's own audit, released last week, "did not find that the journal's normal procedures had been disregarded, or that the Regnerus paper had been inappropriately expedited to publication, as some critics have charged."

The whole affair illustrates, once again, the left's intolerance of opposing views on hot-button issues. Regnerus could have reached a different conclusion and avoided the backlash. But because his results conflicted with the left's preferred narrative on same-sex parenting, the critics pounced.

Peter Wood wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education:

We get it: Researchers take note. Publish only findings that support the gay agenda. Departures from that rule will be punished up to and including career-ending academic show trials.

The summer wouldn't be complete without an attack on the Boy Scouts of America as well. Earlier this month, after a two-year review, the organization reaffirmed its longstanding position of refusing membership for openly homosexual individuals.

That's within its constitutional right as a private organization, but it was unacceptable to a group of individuals who would rather impose their own beliefs and trample on the Boy Scouts' rights. The Human Rights Campaign and Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation immediately condemned the organization, calling it a "discriminatory policy" and "dangerous message."

Americans have spent more than 200 years debating and disagreeing on a range of contentious issues. That's why we treasure free speech. But these recent actions — using political threats against a restaurant chain, advocating for the termination of a university professor and attacking a private organization's right of association — threaten to undermine that very right.