Al Franken has succeeded in stealing the election in Minnesota. Oh sure, Norm Coleman is challenging the results, with good reason, but it probably will not work out for him. People will say that the recount proves that Franken is the winner, but those people have not read into the issue. I have never heard of a recount where every single challenge went in favor of one candidate, as they did for Franken. My favorite, which I alluded to in a post last year involved the 32 ballots that were "found" in an election official's car. All of those ballots were for Franken, not one for Coleman. In a race as close as this one was, at least one vote out of those 32 should have been for Coleman. There was definitely some skulduggery going on in this one. If the courts overturn it, it will be a miracle, if they do not, it will prove that Minnesota is incapable of running a clean election.
Liberty Watchdog
libertywatchdog@gmail.com
Saturday, January 31, 2009
On Gitmo...
So, Obama will close Gitmo within a year. That is just great. Now what are we going to do with all those religious extremists who have pledged to allah that they will destroy the western way of life? Maybe some of the Democrats in congress would like to have them in their congressional districts. We cannot let them go free as long as we are still at war with them, otherwise they will rejoin the fight. Many who have been set free already have, and there is no reason to think that the rest will not. My proposal, if Gitmo really does close, send them to Phoenix and let Sheriff Joe of Maricopa County do as he pleases with them.
Liberty Watchdog
libertywatchdog@gmail.com
Liberty Watchdog
libertywatchdog@gmail.com
Let's see if Google deletes this one...
Why did google allow the google bomb "miserable failure" linking to Dubya's profile at whitehouse.gov to exist for almost the entire Bush presidency, yet they fixed it when Obama inherited it almost immediately? Google says that it does not reflect their politics, that the one for Bush remained for so long, but if that is true, why did they clean it up so quickly when it caused traffic to go to Obama's profile? We should try it linking communist to Obama's White House profile and see if it gets fixed as quickly. For those who do not know what a google bomb is, if enough websites link a certain word to a website, that page will achieve higher results on the list in a search engine search. Google says they have fixed the problem, but it still works for some other search engines.
Liberty Watchdog
libertywatchdog@gmail.com
Liberty Watchdog
libertywatchdog@gmail.com
The New Stimulus Plan
Where do I start with this bloated monstrosity? This $825 billion spending plan is so laden down with goodies for friends of the Democrat party that it is just shameless. The reason they are trying to force it through so quickly is not to help the economy (they know it will not), it is so the American people do not get a chance to read it and realize they are being taken for a ride by the chosen one and his gang of miscreants. When congressional Republicans refused to support it, the Democrats were more than happy to run out to their buddies in the media and grandstand about how the Republicans do not want to create jobs. The media goes along with it, never mentioning that this bill will do nothing but increase government spending and fund pet projects of Democrats. They know the American people will just swallow this because they said it will work.
Here is a list of many of the spending programs included in the "stimulus" bill, HR1. I will point out just a few of them, but you can see a fairly complete list by clicking on the link above. Would somebody please tell me how these are going to stimulate the economy?
Where is the value in this to stimulate the economy? What does the National Mall in D.C. have to do with the current state of our economy? Nothing, that is what. Do these people think we are stupid? No, they KNOW that most people are stupid.
I like the Smithsonian, but this is not going to help either. The Smithsonian has nothing to do with the economy. Seems like more spending for the sake of spending to me.
Yes, education is important, but this is for Government education. Soon your kids can go to a more modern school to learn about how good government is. That is, if they do not violate zero tolerance rules by drawing a picture of a gun. This will not stimulate the economy any more than it would if the government spent that money on more studies of the environmental impact of cow flatulence.
Now, there is a good idea. Let's spend money on roads in places where there is no federal taxes paid so people can get to the casinos that also are not taxed. As much money as the reservations are making off people at those casinos, they should be expected to fund their own infrastructure...or pay taxes like the rest of us.
And then, there is this little gem. I am all for advanced batteries, you would have to be stupid not to be, but does the government really need to spend $2 billion on it under the guise of economic stimulus? And why should the government fund this? The researchers will only develop the bare minimum of results, as all government researchers do. Government researchers only work hard enough to keep receiving grants, and rarely produce anything because, once they do, there is no more funding. They would rather keep researching with no tangible results and keep getting paid. Why not let Duracell do this research? If they felt they could make a profit from advanced batteries, they would be making them, or at least researching how to.
And there are many more. Just read for yourself here.
Some of these are probably necessary spending. All I am asking is that they try to pass those programs on their own merits and not try to fool us by telling us that it is for the economy when it really is not. This is just a bonanza of government spending that will probably hurt the economy more than it will help.
Tax cuts are a much better way to stimulate the economy. I do not mean Obama's definition of a tax cut, which is taking money by force from people who earned it to give it to people who did not (Obama's proposed tax cuts will give people money who had no tax liability), I mean cutting taxes for people businesses who actually pay them. Yes, that means "the evil rich." And it means small businesses, which employ many people. I know, 95% of small businesses will not be hit with His tax increases, but that 5% is the group that actually employs people.
Liberty Watchdog
LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com
Here is a list of many of the spending programs included in the "stimulus" bill, HR1. I will point out just a few of them, but you can see a fairly complete list by clicking on the link above. Would somebody please tell me how these are going to stimulate the economy?
$50 million in grants to fund "arts projects and activities which preserve jobs$50 million for what, so more sculptures that no thinking person would want to buy can occupy the front of government buildings? If these artists were creating art that people actually wanted, there would be a market for it, but since nobody wants them, I guess it is up to taxpayers to bail them out. Or at least, the Democrats, after all they do count on the support of these people. It must be nice to be able to spend other people's money.
in the non-profit arts sector threatened by declines in philanthropic and other
support during the current economic downturn" through the National Endowment for
the Arts...
$200 million to revitalize the National Mall in Washington, D.C....
Where is the value in this to stimulate the economy? What does the National Mall in D.C. have to do with the current state of our economy? Nothing, that is what. Do these people think we are stupid? No, they KNOW that most people are stupid.
$150 million for deferred maintenance at the Smithsonian museums...
I like the Smithsonian, but this is not going to help either. The Smithsonian has nothing to do with the economy. Seems like more spending for the sake of spending to me.
$14 billion for school modernization, renovation and repair...
Yes, education is important, but this is for Government education. Soon your kids can go to a more modern school to learn about how good government is. That is, if they do not violate zero tolerance rules by drawing a picture of a gun. This will not stimulate the economy any more than it would if the government spent that money on more studies of the environmental impact of cow flatulence.
$300 million for Indian Reservation roads...
Now, there is a good idea. Let's spend money on roads in places where there is no federal taxes paid so people can get to the casinos that also are not taxed. As much money as the reservations are making off people at those casinos, they should be expected to fund their own infrastructure...or pay taxes like the rest of us.
$2 billion for development of advanced batteries...
And then, there is this little gem. I am all for advanced batteries, you would have to be stupid not to be, but does the government really need to spend $2 billion on it under the guise of economic stimulus? And why should the government fund this? The researchers will only develop the bare minimum of results, as all government researchers do. Government researchers only work hard enough to keep receiving grants, and rarely produce anything because, once they do, there is no more funding. They would rather keep researching with no tangible results and keep getting paid. Why not let Duracell do this research? If they felt they could make a profit from advanced batteries, they would be making them, or at least researching how to.
And there are many more. Just read for yourself here.
Some of these are probably necessary spending. All I am asking is that they try to pass those programs on their own merits and not try to fool us by telling us that it is for the economy when it really is not. This is just a bonanza of government spending that will probably hurt the economy more than it will help.
Tax cuts are a much better way to stimulate the economy. I do not mean Obama's definition of a tax cut, which is taking money by force from people who earned it to give it to people who did not (Obama's proposed tax cuts will give people money who had no tax liability), I mean cutting taxes for people businesses who actually pay them. Yes, that means "the evil rich." And it means small businesses, which employ many people. I know, 95% of small businesses will not be hit with His tax increases, but that 5% is the group that actually employs people.
Liberty Watchdog
LibertyWatchdog@gmail.com
I am Back
I am sorry about the hiatus, as I have been quite busy lately. There is so much to talk about, what with the new stimulus (which is really just a collection of democrat spending programs that they have wanted to impose on us for eight years now), Obama appointing lobbyists (breaking his own rules), a tax cheat being appointed as Treasury secretary, Obama telling people not to listen to Rush Limbaugh thus paving the way for the return of the fairness doctrine, an overly expensive inauguration (or should I say coronation), the future closing of Gitmo, Al Franken's successful theft of the Minnesota Senate race, etc...
I will update on these as I can.
Liberty Watchdog
Libertywatchdog@gmail.com
I will update on these as I can.
Liberty Watchdog
Libertywatchdog@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
