Time to abolish corporate taxes!

I love how we turn to congress to fix the mess that uh congress got us into… First congrats to the members of the house who voted against the bailout plan, you are patriots in the truest sense. Now I agree that we need to do some sort of bailout but there has to be accountability, for the executives sure but I mean accountability for creating the mess in the first place.

It is mostly democrats in congress going back to the Carter Administration that have created this mess by arm twisting banks into giving loans to people who couldn’t afford them. Banks were threatened with investigations, etc all through the Clinton years. Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd should also resign as chairmen of the House and Senate Banking Committee.

Next item is how to pay for it. I have yet to hear anybody especially the House or Senate leadership tell us how we’re going to pay for this $700 Billion bailout. For some reason congress has to “pay” for tax cuts but not bailouts? Not buying it. We need to generate more revenue to the treasury; we need a more friendly business climate in this country so I suggest we abolish corporate taxes immediately. This will stimulate the economy, encourage more investment and create more jobs.

As usual the answer to any crisis is to get government out of the way, and as usual governments reaction to a crisis will be to get in the way.

Business as usual for the libs

It is apparent that fall is upon us this election year.  The leaves are starting to turn, the temperatures have cooled a bit, and the loony left are getting their excuses in place in case they actually lose this election.  Yes once again we will be treated to the time honored things like “we didn’t get our message out” but this year we have a few new ones to add to the stack.

The mantra seems to be that if his highness Obama doesn’t get elected that all of us who don’t vote for him are racists.  Wow that’s original; Jesse and Al have been running around making a living on racists for the past 40+ years.  Of course McCain hasn’t said anything to remotely be considered racist, so it will fall on all of us to wear this title I guess.

Well ok let’s go with that.  If standing up for ideals like low taxes, less government, pro 2nd amendment, anti-socialism, anti-communism, means I am a racist?  Ok fine if it makes you feel better (because that’s what it is all about) then call me a racist.  Personally I prefer the term Patriot.

Anyway the excuses don’t end there.  We have seen a few stories of late that are somewhat critical of Hillary’s tepid support for Obama.  Not that I like defending Hillary but let’s be real, she has to make absolute certain that Obama doesn’t get elected.  If he does, the Bill & Hill show has played it’s last show on the national stage.  Hillary has to hope for 2012, she also has to hope that Obama loses in a Dukakis like way so she can rally the Dems in 2012 by saying “see I told you so…”

So now the trial balloons being floated are that if Obama loses it will be Bill Clinton’s fault, I kid you not.  This won’t be Hillary’s fault; Hillary keeps “the list” the list of those who supported her and the list of those that lined up against her.  Some in the media are starting to figure out a couple of things, first, Obama might actually lose this election, and second if he does then who will be standing there in 2012 ready to issue paybacks for those that dared go against the Clinton machine?  Yep Hillary.

So in the coming weeks we’ll see this effort intensify.  The media is too invested in defeat; they are leaving everything on the field in their support for Obama.  They needed to be rid of the Clinton’s as much as the right needs to be rid of the Clinton’s if not more but they know that they have to be careful with Hillary.  Blame Bill until the end of time because they don’t need him anymore, but Hillary may not be done yet…

Watchdog group lifts the fog from Alaskan bridge

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), a non-partisan, non-profit organization on a mission to eliminate waste, mismanagement and inefficiency in the federal government, has published a background report on Alaska’s infamous “bridge to nowhere” which finally clears the air surrounding what has become the poster child for federal pork projects.

In a press release dated September 11, Tom Schatz, the president of CGAW’s lobby arm, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, stated:

There has been much debate and even more speculation about how funds for the Bridge to Nowhere were first provided, Congress’s role in changing the nature of the funding, and the various options the state of Alaska had to build the bridge. Many in the media and the public are providing an opinion when they should be providing the facts. We intend to continually update this document on our website as additional verifiable information becomes available.

Indeed, many critics of GOP vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin have been misrepresenting the facts about the bridge and her part in the process which led to the cancellation of the project. CGAW’s background report vindicates Palin and shows that it was she, not congress, who should be given credit for killing the bridge. Schatz explains:

Media reports that Congress killed the Bridge to Nowhere are not accurate. The 2006 transportation appropriations bill allowed Alaska to decide whether or not to move forward. Governor Murkowski said yes; Governor Palin said no. Any discussion about the project should begin with facts.

The report also clarifies Palin’s position on the project before and after her election to the Alaska governorship:

As a candidate for governor, Sarah Palin expressed a mixture of support and doubt about the bridge, particularly about how the project would be funded. As governor, she submitted her budget on January 17, 2007 without any money for the bridge. On July 17, 2007, the Associated Press reported that “The state of Alaska on Friday officially abandoned the ‘bridge to nowhere’ project that became a nationwide symbol of federal pork-barrel spending.” Governor Palin said in a statement that “Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer.”

CGAW also details the genesis of the project and the attempt by Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn to take the money which would have financed the Alaska bridge and apply it instead to a project of higher priority - a badly needed bridge rebuilding project in Louisiana:

The Bridge to Nowhere was first funded in August 2005 through the 2005 SAFETEA-LU Act through a $223 million earmark inserted by then-House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young (R-Alaska). In October, 2005, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) offered an amendment to the fiscal 2006 Transportation Appropriations Act to transfer $75 million in funding for the Bridge to Nowhere, along with money for the Knik Arm Bridge in Alaska, to support the rebuilding of the Twin Spans Bridge in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. His amendment was defeated by a vote of 15-82. Senators Biden (D-Del.) and Obama (D-Ill.) voted against the amendment; Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) was not present for the vote.

The CAGW report clearly vindicates Gov. Palin and shows that her actions were prudent and responsible to her state’s taxpayers. In her own words, she had always spoken of a link, not necessarily an expensive new bridge, between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. This link could have included a new ferry capable of carrying more vehicles than the current one or a less expensive bridge than the one proposed by Young.

This report should silence the anti-Palin forces at least on the issue of the “Bridge to Nowhere.” Unfortunately, given the irrationality of many of her critics, the facts will not impress them. The truth will, however, impress the majority of voters, most of whom see the relentless attacks on Sarah Palin for what they are - sheer propaganda with no basis in fact.

- JP

What the left is really afraid of…

As the days go by since latest incarnation of "The Speech" we see the left continues to look like the horses ass they are by bashing Palin for her hair, her glasses, whatever.  What’s so funny about is that it is plain for all Americans to see that they are so desperate to tear down Sarah Palin.  They correctly realize what a threat that a McCain presidency would mean.  We are talking about a constant Republican control of the White House for 20 years at least.

This woman is such a threat to the left that they will stop at nothing to tear her down.  If you think they are loony now watch what happens when McCain continues to run 5-10 points ahead into mid October.  They will reign in Geraldine Ferraro and run her out to bash Sarah, they’re already running Hillary out there but let’s be realistic, Hillary needs McCain to win so she has a shot to run in 2012.

Don’t believe me, here’s an excerpt from Michael Reagan at Real Clear Politics, Sept 4.  Thanks to Kathy McCoy for highlighting this to me as I originally missed it.

I’ve been trying to convince my fellow conservatives that they have been wasting their time in a fruitless quest for a new Ronald Reagan to emerge and lead our party and our nation. I insisted that we’d never see his like again because he was one of a kind.

I was wrong!

 

Wednesday night I watched the Republican National Convention on television and there, before my very eyes, I saw my Dad reborn; only this time he’s a she.

 

And what a she!

Michael Reagan is right on the money here, but here’s more….

In one blockbuster of a speech, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin resurrected my Dad’s indomitable spirit and sent it soaring above the convention center, shooting shock waves through the cynical media’s assigned spaces and electrifying the huge audience with the kind of inspiring rhetoric we haven’t heard since my Dad left the scene.

 

This was Ronald Reagan at his best — the same Ronald Reagan who made the address known now solely as “The Speech,” which during the Goldwater campaign set the tone and the agenda for the rebirth of the traditional conservative movement that later sent him to the White House for eight years and revived the moribund GOP.

This is what scares the left to death.  They know that they are so close to actually having some power back.  Their media has done such a makeover on Obama that they have a good size portion of the electorate thinking this guy is some type of god.  The reality is that Obama is just Jimmy Carter in an expensive suit.

Over the next several weeks the left will rise to levels of loonyness we never thought possible.  The price of failure with them is high, they can’t afford four years of McCain followed up by eight years of Sarah Palin.  We will see all the usual dirty tricks, we will see democratic voter fraud on a scale that conservatives never thought possible.  Chicago 1960, Florida 2000, these elections will look mild compared to what the left will do this time to make sure Sarah doesn’t get elected VP.

What if Palin had given Gibson Joe Biden answers?

The nattering nabobs of nonsense are busy parsing Sarah Palin’s answers to Charlie Gibson’s questions in the first segment of the ABC News interview and proclaiming that she isn’t ready to be vice president, God forbid president of the United States.

“She wants to start a war with Russia!” and “She didn’t know what the Bush Doctrine is!” they are sneering. Never mind that she never said that we should or would go to war with Russia.

Never mind that the Bush Doctrine, as summerized in a National Security Strategy statement released in 2002, consists of eight different principles on the Bush approach to foreign policy - champion aspirations for human dignity, strengthen alliances to defeat global terrorism and work to prevent attacks against the US and its friends, work with others to defuse regional conflicts, prevent the enemies of the US from threatening it, its allies and friends with weapons of mass destruction, ignite a new era of global economic growth through free markets and free trade, expand the circle of development by opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy, and develop agendas for cooperative action with the other main centers of global power.

Critics of the Doctrine tend to overlook this and simply boil it down to mean that the U.S. can attack and invade any country which it deems to be a threat to our national security. This generalization forgoes accuracy for expediency, and not everyone interprets it in this manner.

No wonder, then that Palin asked Gibson, “In what way?” to try to force him to be more specific in his generic question to her about the Bush Doctrine. I doubt there are many outside of Bush’s administration who are familiar with all eight points of the policy and could discuss it based on that knowledge. But Gibson refused to narrow down his question, and in a very condescending tone, he proceeded to “school” her on what the Bush Doctrine (in <em>his</em> view) meant.

Joe Biden, meanwhile, has said some very goofy things about foreign policy, and none of the nattering nabobs seem concerned. He gets a pass, but Palin gets broiled on the media grill.

What if Sarah Palin, instead of answering Charlie’s question in her own words, had instead provided Gibson with direct Joe Biden quotes (changing only a few names) for her answers. We would have been treated to the following surrealistic scenario:

GIBSON: Can you look the country in the eye and say, “I have the experiece to be not just vice president but perhaps president of the United States?”

*

PALIN: Tim Pawlenty is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight, Charlie.

*

GIBSON: And you didn’t say to yourself, “Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I - will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?”

*

PALIN: He is qualified to be President of the United States of America, Charlie. He’s easily qualified to be Vice President of the United States of America and, quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me.”

*

GIBSON: Didn’t that take some hubris?

*

PALIN: God love ya… What am I talking about?

*

GIBSON: Under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

*

PALIN: I’m groping here…

*

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

*

PALIN: Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Russia.

Now that would have been an interview!

Not only would the media attack dogs and the Obama surrogates scream bloody murder, they would eviscerate John McCain for selecting such an obvious moron to be his running mate and such a loose cannon who could potentially become vice president of the United States, just a heartbeat away from being leader of the free world.

I rest my case.

- JP

Greatness in our midst?

I stand before you fellow conservatives and ask why?  Why have we been hiding Sarah Palin in Alaska, no disrespect to our friends in Alaska, but this woman went to the convention on Wednesday night and delivered one of the best convention speeches this country has ever seen.  Sarah Palin showed up and illustrated for people that not only does she have more experience than Obama, Obama isn’t in her league, Sarah has taken control of this campaign and now it’s personal and she has made it clear that Biden is irrelevant and she will go toe to toe with Obama.

It’s funny the two old white guys in this campaign will from this point forward be relegated to the back pages and this is very clearly Sarah versus Obama. 

This woman has the gift to move people with words that Obama could only dream of.  She doesn’t talk in platitudes and emptiness, she talks from a position of strength, someone that is not only comfortable with her beliefs but willing to fight to the death for them. 

We may look back on this moment in history and say this was the modern day version of Reagan’s 1976 remarks at the convention, when the history is written the notion that Sarah Palin was the first woman vice president will be a footnote and instead future historians may view Sarah Palin in the same context as Reagan, Lincoln, Jefferson, leaders that changed the face of our nation.

I am generally not one to give advice to liberals but Barry, you better stick to battling McCain because Sarah Palin is so far out of your league that you will lose that fight.  Barry you have come between a mother and her cubs and now you will pay the price.

 

Next Page »