Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think anyone should be discriminated against, for any reason.  I do, however, feel that making a certain group of people a ‘special class’ is ridiculous!   It is more and more obvious that this country has lost it’s roots, and we are now floundering in the cesspool of ‘secular religion’.  The intent of the bills on the surface, and I’m just guessing here, is to stop bullying.  Well, we already have laws that are suppose to do that, as in ya don’t punch someone in the nose because they don’t think or act like you. 

Congress evidently believes they can overrule God!

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

This is not the only passage in the Bible that sets down the law, but it is the most well known one.

A brief summary of what this bill will do (from an email from the Public Advocate of the United States):

*** Require schools to teach appalling homosexual acts so “homosexual students” don’t feel “singled out” during already explicit sex-ed classes;

*** Spin impressionable students in a whirlwind of sexual confusion and misinformation, even peer pressure to “experiment” with the homosexual “lifestyle;”

*** Exempt homosexual students from punishment for propositioning, harassing, or even sexually assaulting their classmates, as part of their specially-protected right to “freedom of self-expression;”

*** Force private and even religious schools to teach a pro-homosexual curriculum and purge any reference to religion if a student claims it creates a “hostile learning environment” for homosexual students.

In reality, the bills are promoting discrimination, but that’s not all that unusual for the radical left.

SEC. 5. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT; REPORT TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.

(b) Enforcement- Compliance with any requirement adopted pursuant to this section may be effected–

(1) by the termination of or refusal to grant or to continue assistance under such program or activity to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding on the record, after opportunity for hearing, of a failure to comply with such requirement, but such termination or refusal shall be limited to the particular political entity, or part thereof, or other recipient as to whom such a finding has been made, and shall be limited in its effect to the particular program, or part thereof, in which such noncompliance has been so found; or

So, let me get this straight…no pun intended…if a public school doesn’t doesn’t comply with this law, and put their (both student and faculty) eternal souls at jeopardy, the federal gubmint will cut off funding? Somehow, refusing to return OUR money to OUR schools just doesn’t seem right. Well, of course not…it’s wrong, aka LEFT.

Section 7, STATE IMMUNITY

(a) State Immunity- A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from suit in Federal court for a violation of this Act.

So, a state can’t opt out of this obvious violation of the 1st Amendment? Am I reading that correctly?  People are suppose to be free to speak their minds, practice their faith, and NOT be penalized.  With these bills, a person can NOT practice their faith, or speak about it to others.  But yet, the religion of government is free to impose their will on the American people.  Does anyone else have a problem with this, besides me?

Please, go read BOTH bills.  They aren’t very long.  I don’t much care for bullies, of any gender, or status.  What I am seeing in these bills is the bullying of the American people by the very Congress whose salary they pay.

There is a petition to Congress, opposing these bills, not that Congress gives a flying flip what WE, The People have to say, but it doesn’t hurt to give it a shot!

New legislation introduced in the U.S. House yesterday would prohibit the use of federal money for advertisements attacking products like Coke and Pepsi.

Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN) introduced the bill to counter a growing trend of anti-obesity ads that are funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Scribe reported in October the money was included in President Obama’s economic stimulus law.

When I first saw that headline, I thought….there they go again!  But after reading the whole post, I must say, I totally agree with what I read of the legislation.  If there is other nonsense stuck in the bill, I’m not aware of it.  Now, I realize that diabetes is a very serious disease, and obesity is a problem, but to fake pictures, and attack U.S. companies that provide jobs for American citizens is taking it too far.  Not to mention using our money to attack those companies.

New York City received $15.5 million in federal funding for its anti-obesity efforts. While it has generated most of the attention for its eye-catching ads, other cities are engaging in similar practices. In Philadelphia, the city spent $2.4 million on ads attacking soda. Campaigns have also popped up in Boston, Los Angeles, Seattle and even Topeka, KS.

The 2009 stimulus, of course, was sold to Congress as a plan to revive the economy by creating or saving millions of jobs. According to Smart Taxpayers Exposing Waste, a campaign launched by the American Beverage Association, Philadelphia could have used the money it spent on ads to hire 52 police officers, 54 firemen, 57 paramedics, 58 teachers or 88 EMTs.

Now we know why the porkulus was such a failure.  It was pushed as a spending spree to get the economy moving, and provide jobs.  When the number of jobs that COULD have been created is canceled out by Big Brother pushing an agenda instead of considering the safety of citizens FIRST, I’d have to say the porkulus was a MAJOR FAIL!  If any city needs more cops (from reading SYLG), it would be Philadelphia!

As President Barack Obama prepares to deliver his annual address to Congress, many goals he outlined in previous State of the Union speeches remain unfulfilled. From reforming immigration laws to meeting monthly with congressional leaders of both parties, the promises fell victim to congressional opposition or faded in face of other priorities as the unruly realities of governing set in.

He’s one of those people who paint a pretty mental picture, but when it comes to actually putting brush to canvass, it’s more like a kid with a box of crayons, with only 2 or 3 colors.

For Obama, like presidents before him, the State of the Union is an opportunity like no other to state his case on a grand stage, before both houses of Congress and a prime-time television audience. But as with other presidents, the aspirations he’s laid out have often turned out to be ephemeral, unable to secure the needed congressional consent or requiring follow-through that’s not been forthcoming.

He has stated his case….repeatedly.  He wants to destroy the country!  Oh, he hasn’t exactly come out and said so, but from the actions he has taken, it’s quite obvious to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together.  None of his grandiose plans have done anything more than take a back situation, and turn it into a complete disaster.

As Obama’s first term marches to an end amid bitterly divided government and an intense campaign by Republicans to take his job, it’s going to be even harder for him to get things done this year. So Tuesday night’s speech may focus as much on making an overarching case for his presidency — and for a second term — as on the kind of laundry list of initiatives that sometimes characterize State of the Union appeals.

The job of the Congress in the coming term, is to keep that man/child from doing anymore damage. The House has passed many bills that would aid in economic recovery. The Democrat controlled Senate, headed by the very feckless Runnin’ Harry Reid, have thwarted any efforts of the House by refusing to bring the bills to the floor for a vote. HE is a very dangerous man. So, if the Senate Dems aren’t interested in getting the economy moving, doesn’t it stand to reason that the POTUS really doesn’t care either? Just askin’.

For Obama, last year’s State of the Union offers a case study in that dynamic. Speaking to a newly divided government not long after the assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Ariz., Obama pleaded for national unity, a grand goal that never came to pass as Washington quickly dissolved into one partisan dispute after another.

Pretty words that meant absolutely NOTHING! The left condemns the right for saying the least little thing that puts any of them in a negative light. The right says little to nothing when the left slams anyone. Pussies! Grow a pair. Beat them at their own game. Do we have to lower ourselves to their level. No, we have more subtle ways of giving a slap down. Down South, we have the prettiest ways of giving a dressing down. Bless their hearts, they just can’t help it if they are so nasty. I guess their upbringing didn’t include manners.

The Mr has asked for only one thing for his birthday….that is to NOT have to sit through another one of D’Bama empty speeches, full of lies. I do believe I can afford that, don’t you?

The Senate begins work this week on a spending bill that would set up a new $10 million grant program aimed at helping states combat “distracted driving,” which focuses on texting behind the wheel.

“While there is no definitive data as to how many distracted driving deaths and injuries are caused by cell phone use and texting, 20 percent of the drivers involved in fatal accidents in 2009 were either using or in the presence of a cell phone at the time of the crash, and there is reason to be concerned about whether the recent rise in distracted driving fatalities is linked to the increasing use of electronic devices,” according to report language for S. 1596, the 2012 spending bill for the Department of Transportation and other agencies.

Pissing away even more of OUR money. Evidently, using said funds to protect our borders, or shoot, just give it back to us, never occurs to Congress. Seriously? “…in the presence of a cell phone…”? I’m “in the presence” of my cell phone every time I get in my truck. And when the Mr is with me, I’m in the presence of TWO! GASP!

Now, don’t get me wrong…I do think ‘distracted driving’ is a fairly serious issue, however, that is not for the federal government to deal with, it is a state issue.  The state makes the laws concerning its roads like speed limits, etc.  Unfortunately, the feds have used blackmail to push through their agenda.  Anyone else remember the forced 55mph debacle?  The feds threatened to withhold funds unless the states complied with their rules.  Isn’t it odd how the federal government decided to blackmail states with money that came from….the states? 

Here’s a novel concept!  How about using that large chunk of change, and actually TEACH good driving habits in those public indoctrination centers?   Just glancing through this bill, I want to smack the dog fire out of someone.  A few trillion here, several billion there, and the occasional million tossed in for good measure.

I think it’s time to remind Congress, once again, who is in charge, because they obviously have forgotten…..THEY WORK FOR US!  And we can fire them!

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011’ or the ‘PROTECT IP Act of 2011’.

SEC 3, b

1) IN GENERAL- On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action under this section, the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against the nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities, or against a registrant of such domain name, or the owner or operator of such Internet site dedicated to infringing activities, to cease and desist from undertaking any further activity as an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities, if–

Have they met our current Attorney General? The man is quite off his rocker, and completely anti Constitution. He drops cases that are obviously a violation of our laws, and brings suits against hard working Americans. He’s dangerous. Putting such power in his hands is beyond insane. Putting such power in ANYONE’s hands is beyond comprehension.

Apparently, those we have elected to represent us….don’t.   Fortunately, at least one co-sponsor, Marco Rubio, has come to his senses.  Will any of the others?

Sec.1, Title 1, Definitions

Sec. 105. Immunity for taking voluntary action against sites that endanger public health.

I’ve no doubt the writers of this bill was considering the numerous jihadi websites, or others that promote violence, but what about Burger King? Many people seem to think that fast food restaurants ‘endanger public health’. Food nazis have been on the rampage for a while now, attempting to control what people decide to have for lunch. So, if I took advertising, which I don’t, and won’t, and Burger King wanted to put an ad on my site, the government could shut me down for accepting such an ad.

In Sec. 2, a, 1:

FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

Not true. See example above. If I accept an ad from someone the government doesn’t like, they can shut me down, which would be violating MY right to free speech! Not only would they shut me down, but anyone who is connected to this site behind the scenes, like the host we pay to run our sites. That would include silent E, and Ick.

Read the entire bill. It’s more than a bit disturbing. Congress has, over the years, whittled away our God given rights, for the purpose of control. This is just one more step in the process. My description may be extremely simplistic, but I’m sure you get the idea. Stopping theft of intellectual property isn’t a bad thing, but this is not the way to do it!

Write your Congress critter, and both your Senators. If your Rep is on this list of sponsors, rip them a new one! Let them know we do NOT approve of their sponsorship!

Sponsor

• Rep. Mark Amodei [R, NV-2]
  Added November 03, 2011
• Rep. Joe Baca [D, CA-43]
  Added December 07, 2011
• Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12]
  Added November 14, 2011
• Rep. Karen Bass [D, CA-33]
  Added November 03, 2011
• Rep. Howard Berman [D, CA-28]
  Added October 26, 2011
• Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R, TN-7]
  Added October 26, 2011
• Rep. Mary Bono Mack [R, CA-45]
  Added October 26, 2011
• Rep. John Carter [R, TX-31]
  Added November 03, 2011
• Rep. Steven Chabot [R, OH-1]
  Added October 26, 2011
• Rep. Judy Chu [D, CA-32]
  Added November 30, 2011
• Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14]
  Added October 26, 2011
• Rep. Jim Cooper [D, TN-5]
  Added December 12, 2011
• Rep. Ted Deutch [D, FL-19]
  Added October 26, 2011
• Rep. Elton Gallegly [R, CA-24]
  Added October 26, 2011
• Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R, VA-6]
  Added October 26, 2011
• Rep. Tim Griffin [R, AR-2]
  Added October 26, 2011
• Rep. Tim Holden [D, PA-17]
  Added November 30, 2011
• Rep. Peter King [R, NY-3]
  Added November 03, 2011
• Rep. John Larson [D, CT-1]
  Added November 30, 2011
• Rep. Ben Luján [D, NM-3]
  Added November 14, 2011
• Rep. Thomas Marino [R, PA-10]
  Added November 03, 2011
• Rep. Alan Nunnelee [R, MS-1]
  Added November 03, 2011
• Rep. William Owens [D, NY-23]
  Added November 14, 2011
• Rep. Ben Quayle [R, AZ-3]
  Added December 13, 2011
• Rep. Dennis Ross [R, FL-12]
  Added October 26, 2011
• Rep. Steve Scalise [R, LA-1]
  Added November 14, 2011
• Rep. Adam Schiff [D, CA-29]
  Added October 26, 2011
• Rep. Brad Sherman [D, CA-27]
  Added December 07, 2011
• Rep. Lee Terry [R, NE-2]
  Added October 26, 2011
• Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D, FL-20]
  Added November 03, 2011
• Rep. Melvin Watt [D, NC-12]
  Added November 03, 2011

As of midnight, Wikipedia is shut down for 24 hours, and hundreds of other popular websites have gone dark right along with it. They are standing together in protest of two controversial pieces of legislation that threaten Internet security and undermine the freedom of speech all in an effort to crack down on online “piracy” — the illegal distribution of copyrighted material.

Hollywood, the music industry, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have gone to bat on behalf of the proposed laws on the grounds that they will help protect valuable copyrighted property. And while the goal is laudable, the ends don’t justify the means. The Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act have far-reaching consequences for the Internet’s infrastructure, individual liberties, and innovation in the digital age.

Under the laws, upon a court order, third-party companies and websites would be forced to crack down on rogue websites — and even ones that unwittingly host or link to material that may violate copyrights or trademarks, whether or not they have knowledge of the violation. Internet service providers would be required to block Internet addresses of offending sites — a measure that Internet engineers warn could threaten Internet security. Search engines would be prohibited from including pirate sites in search results, a requirement that goes well beyond current law and may, in fact, violate the First Amendment. Heritage’s James Gattuso and Paul Rosenzweig explain ramifications:

[L]imits on speech here are almost certain to be extended to other cases. If links to pirate sites are banned, why not links to sites disseminating national security secrets? Or sites “facilitating” violence by propagating extreme political positions? Moreover, other countries that have pursued content controls of their own, such as China, may be encouraged by steps in the U.S. to limit content.

It is concerns like these that have caused a firestorm in the online world, leading Wikipedia to declare that the laws “would be devastating to the free and open web” and prompting Google to campaign against the laws on its highly trafficked search engine. Meanwhile, PC Magazine reports that co-founders of top tech firms like Twitter, Google, Yahoo, and eBay wrote an open letter opposing the laws, arguing that they would undermine the “regulatory climate that promotes entrepreneurship, innovation, the creation of content and free expression online.”

Here’s why: Under the laws, websites like Facebook, with its hundreds of millions of users, or YouTube, where 48 hours of video are uploaded every minute, would now be accountable for all content posted on their sites. As a result, websites would be discouraged from engaging in speech or from providing a forum where others can do the same. That, in turn, will stifle innovation–the lifeblood of the economy. One study showed that among 200 venture capitalists and angel investors, almost all would stop funding digital media intermediaries if these laws are enacted.

Setting aside the burden the laws would impose on the freedom of speech and innovation, they don’t even make practical sense. Trying to block content online is tantamount to blocking the Mississippi River with a two-by-four. It can’t be done. Countries like Iran routinely censor content, yet information still flows through–oftentimes with the help of the United States. This attempt to crack down on pirated material is a futile effort by industries that are suffering at the hands of a technology that has surpassed it, much like when Hollywood was up in arms over VCRs in the 1980s and when the music industry threw a fit over MP3 players in the late 1990s.

The Internet is the greatest engine for free speech and innovation ever known to humankind. Certainly its power can be used for good as well as bad, but censoring content, jeopardizing the security of the Internet, and stifling innovation is not the answer for protecting intellectual property rights.

Federal spending bills approved by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives have increased the national debt by more than $1 trillion dollars in just 10 months.

Republicans won a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in the November 2010 elections and took control of the House on Jan. 5, 2011, when the chamber convened and elected Rep. John Boehner (R.-Calif.) as speaker.

Was our message not clear enough? Should we have camped out in your offices to make sure you DID get the message??? Should we behave like the trashy Occupy Wall Street slimes, and take up residence, smelling to high heaven, sharing vermin with the rest of the residents of the area?

But the Republican-controlled House did not gain a veto power over federal spending until March 4, 2011. That was the expiration date of the continuing resolution (CR) that the lame-duck Democrat-controlled Congress approved in December 2010. After March 4, federal spending has been approved by legislation that needed to be approved in the Republican-controlled House.

On March 1, 2011, the Republican-controlled House passed its first CR to fund the government after March 4. Since then, it has approved a series of CRs to keep the government funded. The Republican House approved its latest CR on December 16. It will keep the government funded until the end of fiscal 2012 on Sept. 30.

ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!  $1,000,000,000,000!!!!

Eighty-six House Republicans went against their party leaders and voted against the Dec. 16 CR, which actually garnered more votes from House Democrats (149) than House Republicans (147).

When the Republican-controlled House approved its first CR on March 4, 2011, the national debt was 14,182,627,184,881.03, according to the U.S. Treasury. As of the close of business on Jan. 9, 2012, the national debt was 15,236,506,139,986.86.

Those 147 Republicans should start looking for a new job! I’m not the only one that is fed up with D.C. wasting OUR money! The Democrats have been having a high ol’ time spending money that doesn’t belong to them for many decades now, and evidently, the Republicans are trying to play catch up! HEY!!! IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY!!!

That means the debt increased by $1.05 trillion over the past ten months.

That equals approximately $8,964 for each of the 117,572,000 American households estimated by the Census Bureau.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t have a spare 9 grand laying around each month. I don’t have a spare quarter, thanks to the stupidity that runs rampant up there! The whole idea of 2010 was to STOP the madness, and bring some sanity back. Obviously, it didn’t work, and WE, The People got screwed over, once again!

At the current rate, the Republican-controlled House is agreeing to allow the U.S. Treasury to borrow approximately an additional $896 per month American household per month.

Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution says: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Article 1, Section 7 says that every bill “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate … before it become a Law.”

The hell with it! You are ALL FREAKIN’ FIRED!  Seems that ‘oath of office’ means NOTHING to you people!  Not a one of y’all are worth the effort that we put forth to get y’all elected, with one or two exception. And I’m starting to wonder about them as well!

Tax policy should be serious business carried out by serious politicians using real facts and figures. This is why we have the Library of Congress and the Congressional Budget Office, among other expert institutions.

How can we take Congress seriously when the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, makes patently inaccurate, outrageous and bizarre claims on an important tax-policy issue without any heads being turned? I guess this is what we have come to expect of Congress. No wonder citizens with favorable opinions of Congress are as rare as unicorns, to borrow a phrase.

Congress’ ratings suck because Congress sucks. It’s pretty much that simple. We have no trust in a body of arrogant back stabbers who are suppose to be working for US, not against us at every turn.

Harry Reid’s statement on December 6 on his proposed 1.9 percent surtax on million-dollar incomes has kicked up some dust. Here is his statement:

“Millionaire job creators are like unicorns. They’re impossible to find, and they don’t exist… Only a tiny fraction of people making more than a million dollars, probably less than 1 percent, are small business owners. And only a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction are traditional job creators…Most of these businesses are hedge fund managers or wealthy lawyers. They don’t do much hiring and they don’t need tax breaks.”

I’m tellin’ ya….this guy needs to be put out to pasture! Millionaire’s don’t create jobs? Really? What has Bill Gates been doing? How about Steve Jobs? I guess they had their own unicorn’s farting rainbows filled with pots of gold, eh? The dud shows all the signs of being either in early onset of Alzheimers or he is just flat out insane, and in need of a heavy dose of thorazine!

Taking their cue, National Public Radio launched a search for one millionaire job creator. They triumphantly announced:

“NPR requested help from numerous Republican congressional offices, including House and Senate leadership. They were unable to produce a single millionaire job creator for us to interview.”

Really? Ya know, I find it absolutely amazing that no matter what we say, we are still funding NPR. What a bunch of useless libtards.  And they still beg for more from clueless listeners.  I seriously doubt they could survive in the real world where the market actually dictated the need for their, uh….non-services. 

Were it not for Google, I would have accepted Harry Reid’s unicorn story and NPR’s confirmation. Unlike Harry Reid’s office, I went to the IRS’s Table 1.4 “Sources of income, adjustments, and tax size of adjusted gross income, 2009” to check things out. (I summarize my sources in a separate blog posting). Here is what I found:

There are 236,883 tax filers with incomes of a million dollars or more. By Harry Reid’s count, only one percent, or 2,361 of them, are business owners, and a tiny fraction of them create jobs. I do not know what Harry means when he says “a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction.” If we let 5 percent represent Harry’s “tiny fraction,” we are left with 118 businesses owners who earn a million or more and create jobs. Yes, they are only slightly less rare than unicorns, if Harry is to be believed.

This leaves 236,765 million-dollar-plus tax payers, most of whom are “hedge fund managers and wealthy lawyers” who “don’t create jobs and don’t need tax breaks.”

I would have to say that Reid’s staff is totally incompetent. But then, so is Reid, so I guess they’re all a good match. Heed the words Mr Reid: Google is your friend. Or if you prefer, Bing will also aid you in your search for a fact or two.

My Google search for Harry Reid’s quarter million hedge fund managers and wealthy lawyers came up empty handed. I could identify at most sixteen thousand “wealthy lawyers and hedge fund managers,” not Harry Reid’s quarter million.

Well, Harry Reid’s numbers leave much to be desired, but maybe he is right that millionaire business owners do not create jobs.

What does the IRS have to say about this? Millionaire tax filers earn a total taxable income of $623 billion, on which they pay the highest average rate (30 percent) of any tax bracket. (Either Warren Buffet’s secretary has an incompetent tax accountant or Buffet has some pretty juicy tax breaks. I think the latter is more likely). A 1.9 percent tax surcharge on million-dollar-earners would yield $11 billion, assuming those shifty millionaires take no evasive action to avoid the tax.

I’m more inclined to say that Warren Buffet has lost what little sense he has, and will soon be sharing a rubber room with Harry Reid. While there are many people who are totally clueless, and will not do any investigation for themselves, there are just as many who WILL. This leaves people like Buffet, Reid, Pelosi, and D’Bama with a dilemma. What to do about the folks who aren’t as stupid as they believe? Well, they are doing their darnedest to silence any dissent from their rainbows and unicorn scenario, of course!

Millionaire tax filers earn $221 billion – almost a quarter of a trillion — from business and professions, partnerships, and S-corporations. This is puzzling: If Harry Reid’s figure is correct (2,361 millionaire businesses), then the average millionaire-owned business earns almost a hundred million dollars, and all, except 118 of them, do this without hiring anyone. These super heroes do their own typing, selling, drafting. public relations, building, and manufacturing. They do not need employees. Remarkable!

I wonder, since Harry Reid has become quite rich off the backs of the taxpayers, does he actually create any private sector jobs? Hmmm… Evidently, all those real business folks have managed to become quite wealthy (good on them) without doing a thing. How can I get into that racket? Not that I care about being rich or anything, but I’d really like to learn how these folks manage it without producing any products that the public wants, or without hiring hundreds or even thousands to not produce anything.

To summarize:

Millionaire tax filers earn almost a quarter trillion dollars from their businesses. They must hire hundreds of thousands of employees to do so.

There are a trivial number of millionaire hedge-fund managers and wealthy lawyers (who, according to Harry, do not hire anyone and don’t need tax breaks). The millionaire tax surcharge is not aimed at them, but at the tens of thousands of millionaire business owners.

To put it in ol’ broad terms…. Harry Reid is full of caca de toro!

I love Marsha Blackburn. She is a delightful lady and a solidly conservative member of Congress.

And I am pledging right now that I will do everything in my power to defeat her in her 2012 re-election bid.

I wonder if the left feels that way about Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

Both Marsha Blackburn and Debbie Wasserman Schults, the head of the Democratic National Committee and a Congresswoman from Florida, are cosponsors of the Stop Online Piracy Act.

The Act intends to stop online piracy. The way the Act goes about doing this is, in large part, allowing Eric Holder to take control of the internet and shut down websites he does not like. It is a totalitarian response from a bipartisan coalition of Congresscritters most of whom admit they have no freaking idea how the internet even works. Don’t believe me?

Ok, I’d have to say disgust is a much better word, and even that doesn’t quite cover it!  The idea that Marsha Blackburn would collaborate on ANYTHING with that raving lunatic is beyond rational. The fact that this bill would give the worst Attorney General in our history the power to shut down anything he deemed necessary, or just doesn’t like,  is even MORE unbelievable.

Marsha, you know I think quite highly of you, or at least I did.  However, this is just beyond reason.  You have always been as close to my ideal conservative as a person can get, but this is just mind blowing!  You have led the way in many areas to try to retain our liberties, yet you would sign your name to co-sponsor a bill like this?  Have you become so entrenched in Washington politics that you have forgotten all about us?  With an alternative like the OPEN Act, I would think you would re-consider signing your name to such a violation.  Giving such a power to anyone even remotely related to the Obama administration should have set off warning bells in your head.    Stopping online piracy is a good thing.  Giving Holder the power to shut down people who tend to criticize this administration, is flat out censorship.  Does the name Joseph Goebbels ring a bell? Propaganda is a real useful tool, and I think you’ve been sucked into the Dems version.

The White House says it’s been flooded with responses to the question it posed Wednesday: “What does $40 mean to you?”

One day after the White House asked “working” people to “tell us what your family will give up if your (payroll) taxes increase,” the stories are rolling in, including one from a person who worried about not having enough to pay the cable bill — or continue family pizza nights.

“Our cable internet bill is $49 per month. If we lose this payroll tax cut then we will have to give up either (our) internet access or possibly our ‘Friday Family Pizza’ night. Either way, we will lose something that brings us together as a family,” wrote “K.Z” from Frederick, Maryland.

Honestly, I can’t believe there are people in this country that are so freakin’ dense that they actually buy into the large piles of male bovine excrement that continuously come out of this White House and the sad sacks of Congress.  It’s truly pathetic!

An extension of the payroll tax cut will save a “typical” family earning $50,000 around $40 a paycheck, the White House says. It also will reduce the only dedicated funding source for Social Security benefits, but only a few people in Washington are talking about that.

If that typical family is making $50K, they aren’t suffering all that much. Some folks really do need to learn how to live without luxuries. And yes, having cable or ‘pizza night’ is a luxury, NOT a necessity of life. Are we truly so spoiled that a mere two month extension of a pitiful ‘tax break’ would so totally ruin our lives that we find it necessary to whine to the White House?  This is truly embarrassing, and I’ve no doubt that if people in other countries read this drivel, they’d think even less of us spoiled RICH Americans than they do now….if that’s even possible.

President Obama and his fellow Democrats are blaming House Republicans for the current stalemate over extending the payroll tax cut. The House bill calls for a year-long extension; but the Senate passed a bill extending it for two months. Unless the two bills are reconciled by the end of the year, the payroll tax will go up.

Naturally D’Bama blames others. I think I’d be totally shocked if he, just ONCE, took responsibility of his own actions. And heaven knows, the Senate Dems, led by one of the most weaselly beings on the planet, can’t possibly tell the truth about this whole issue. 2 months from the Dem controlled Senate VS a full year from the Republican controlled House….which one makes more sense? To the left, naturally 2 months of a break is so much better than a full year. Why? Because they are feckless morons who want YOUR money. Of course, the left stream media is all over this, right? Pointing out the difference between the two plans?   …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Ok, stupid question.  I admit it.

Some conservative Republicans say the payroll tax cut extension is a bad idea, period, because it siphons money from the Social Security Trust Fund.

What a novel concept. A Social Security Trust Fund. Problem is….there is no “Trust Fund”. Congress has been so busy spending money that was intended to be returned to the person who paid it in, that there is nothing left for the future. How many older people bought into the idea that S.S. was going to fund their retirement? Likely way more than the population of the State of Texas!

Wolf called the payroll tax extension a “raid on Social Security, which is already going broke,” and he noted that the money paid into the system now — through payroll taxes — pays benefits for existing retirees.

“Granting another tax holiday is unwise. It puts the existing benefits of those 55 million Americans who currently receive Social Security at risk to continue a failed ‘stimulus’ policy,” Wolf said.

*shakes head* We don’t need another ridiculous scheme from Congress.  Both sides of the aisle has been playing fast and lose with our money for way too long.  We need a TOTAL tax system overhaul. You jackwipes in D.C. need to pull your collective heads out of you collective hinders and realize, we ain’t as stupid as you believe us to be!  We are quite well aware of your irresponsible behavior, year in, and year out.  And ya know what?  We are DAMN SICK OF IT!   The behavior of BOTH parties has been down right criminal, and the vast majority of y’all should be behind bars!  Stealing is a crime, you know!

• $15.3 million for one of the infamous Bridges to Nowhere in Alaska.

• $113,227 for video game preservation center in New York.

• $550,000 for a documentary about how rock music contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

• $48,700 for 2nd annual Hawaii Chocolate Festival, to promote Hawaii’s chocolate industry.

• $350,000 to support an International Art Exhibition in Venice, Italy.

• $10 million for a remake of “Sesame Street” for Pakistan.

• $35 million allocated for political party conventions in 2012.

• $765,828 to subsidize “pancakes for yuppies” in the nation’s capital.

• $764,825 to study how college students use mobile devices for social networking.

For a better picture of just what those assjacks are doing with the money that citizens work very hard for, go here.

Shared by Paula via Smart Girl Politics.

On this day 70 years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed a joint session of Congress and requested a declaration of war against Japan following the devastating attack on Pearl Harbor the day before. Roosevelt’s words carried forth across the nation via radio, and the consequences of the actions America would take would be felt around the world–and across history. The lessons America learned in those fateful days should be remembered even today.

Roosevelt noted that the day of Japan’s attack would be “a date which will live in infamy,” and he also pledged the following:

I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces — with the unbounding determination of our people — we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God.

Just as Roosevelt proclaimed that “hostilities exist” 70 years ago, those words are true today. The United States faces threats at home and abroad–as we were reminded on September 11 and with every man and woman in military who makes the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our freedoms. The hostilities we face today are different from those we may face tomorrow, and there is no telling what challenges may lie around the corner. For that reason, our military must stand ready, prepared, and adequately equipped and funded to meet all threats, foreign and domestic.

Unfortunately, the U.S. military’s ability to effectively carry out its mission is in jeopardy. Today, there are those who would like America to return to an era of disengagement while also slashing military spending to dangerous levels. Under the Budget Control Act (BCA), the military budget will be cut by almost $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Those cuts come on top of successive rounds of deep cuts in defense dollars and capabilities that Congress and the Obama Administration have already implemented. In a new paper, Heritage’s Mackenzie Eaglen writes that those cuts will undermine U.S. power and influence around the world and reduce the ability of the military to meet future threats:

The military is a vital tool of U.S. foreign policy. Slashing defense spending without any reduction in U.S. foreign policy commitments around the world is not only dangerous, but also more costly in the long run than maintaining stable defense budgets. A review of roles and missions will not change U.S. foreign policy; only the President can do that. Starving the military as part of a deficit reduction plan may cost taxpayers more in the future if it makes the country less safe and increases the risk of another terrorist attack or the likelihood of U.S. forces being drawn into yet another overseas mission.

The only responsible way to fund defense is to identify the nation’s vital national interests, ask what is required to defend the nation and those interests, determine what military capabilities are required to do so, and then build a defense budget to match the foreign and defense policies of the United States.

Eaglen recommends that Congress tackle debt reduction responsibly with American security interests in mind. That means stopping the current rounds of defense cuts, budgeting responsibly for America’s foreign policy needs and objectives, and repealing the debt ceiling deal “trigger.” Other actions she recommends include stabilizing the military’s modernization accounts, aggressively promoting foreign military sales and increasing cutting-edge defense exports to friends and allies, and forcing the Department of Defense to innovate even as budgets fall.

Some would have Americans believe that defense budget cuts required under the BCA would reduce only the rate of increase in the overall defense budget. While precise defense budget projections under the BCA are not possible, it is a certainty that the overall defense budget will decline under its terms. And those are reductions the military can ill afford. Since President Obama took office, more than 50 major weapons programs at a value of more than $300 billion were cut or delayed. On top of this, the Administration told the military to cut almost $600 billion more over the next 15 years. That was even before the BCA took effect.

This is no way to fund a military or to fulfill the Constitution’s prescription that the primary role of the federal government is “to provide for the common defence.” That duty is just as important now as it was 70 years ago when America faced one of its greatest challenges. Just as they did then, Congress and the President should ensure that the federal government carries out its responsibilities today and fully funds our military.

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) on Friday morning said GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry is pushing for a Congress that works just half of its time in Washington, and the other half at members’ local Wal-Mart.

Congratulations Memphis! Once again, you make Tennessee appear to be full of idiots by continuing to elect this bozo to Congress! Stevie, I’m afraid you aren’t qualified to work at Wally World. You’d have to have at least a little bit of common sense to be hired

Speaking on the House floor, Cohen was critiquing a GOP bill that could come up next week that would require Congress to approve all federal regulations. Cohen said this would require Congress to be in session even longer, which goes against candidate Perry’s prescription for a half-time Congress.

Actually, no, it wouldn’t. Well, it wouldn’t if y’all actually did the job you were hired to do, and stay out of OUR business. You’d have plenty of time if y’all just stop creating more useless programs, spending money that isn’t yours, and WE don’t have.

“How can we work half-time under President Perry?” Cohen asked. “We’d have to be working time and a half. And we know there’s not enough money for overtime, and President Perry doesn’t want us to do that, he wants us to get a separate job when we go home.

Heaven forbid if y’all were actually efficient, and could do the job set out in the Constitution, instead of playing games with the American taxpayers money. Personally, I’d like to see your salary cut in half, or maybe more!

“We go back to San Antonio, we work half-time as a congressman and half-time we work at Wal-Mart,” Cohen added. “That’s what he’s suggesting.”

Perry has suggested that Congress only work part-time in order to reduce Washington’s power and save money.

Dude, I’m not sure if you are aware of this or not, but San Antonio is in Texas, and YOU supposedly live in Tennessee. Why would you get a job in Texas? Maroon! Evidently, Cohen is not aware that Congress is SUPPOSE to be a part time job, not a life time career. Aren’t most of you idjits lawyers? How about you go home, and practice law. Heaven knows, y’all could use all the practice you can get! You’ve been getting rich off the sweat of OUR labors for long enough!

H/T: Maria