Tag Archives: midterm elections

This is not spin. He just doesn’t get it or he’s insulting us.

from FoxNews. Obama's election night call to likely next House Speaker, John Bohener.

“Yesterday’s vote confirmed what I’ve heard from folks all across America. People are frustrated, they’re deeply frustrated with the pace of our economic recovery.”

I think most Americans are past the frustration stage and that Obama is spinning this for himself because he can’t convince anyone else of this. The people aren’t frustrated, they’ve just had enough.

Frustration ended months ago after being repeatedly ignored by those who work for us. It ended months ago with his attitude that I wasn’t smart enough to understand this monster bill and then I became the enemy. We tried to tell them they were going too far and they wouldn’t listen. As Krauthammer said today, there never was a real hurry to take over health care. There was no emergency. If we concede that there are some 30 or 45 million people without health insurance (and I would argue that number is actually half to a third of that) there could be ways to address that without throwing the entire system out the window. Instead of paying attention to the lack of jobs and the continuing unemployment, he threw himself into taking over and ruining the best health care in the world.

What he’s done to me and millions of others is raise my insurance premiums by $24 a month and that will never go down again.

This guy just will not believe that his agenda is contrary to everything Americans believe in and want. He’s going to continue to fall back on a lack of communication with the people, he just didn’t do a good enough job explaining this to us. I don’t need to have someone explain to me that my premiums have gone up 8%. All I need to do is read my monthly bank statement.

I don’t need to have him tell me how I feel and why. I’m beyond frustrated. I’m angry. I want to go back to the days when I didn’t see the president 3 times a day, every day and I didn’t think about him everyday: the days when I didn’t worry every morning what the government was going to do to me and my kids next.

I want him and his regulating czars to get out of our lives and leave us alone. They can all go to India and I don’t care if they never come back.


My easy guide to the Arizona ballot questions. I’m in favor of legalizing pot.

There are 12 ballot questions on tomorrows ballot. I was sure how I was going to vote on most of them but a couple of them were new to me. I went through the little guide book and read the arguments for and against.

If there were comments by the Sierra Club, the Green party, or the NEA, I voted opposite their position.

It was so simple then.

I vote against card check, in favor of an amendment to not force health care on me, I’m opposed to affirmative action, opposed to anymore money going to early childhood education and in favor of the legalization of pot.

This doesn't need a caption.

That might be a controversial vote to most of my 6 readers but I have a good reason. If it will decrease the amount of illegal drugs coming over my Arizona border and therefore the amount of illegal aliens and crime, I’m in favor of that.  And I would rather American pot growers make money than crooks and terrorists from Mexico.

After 30 or 40 years of a war on drugs with no changes, it’s time to legalize what is basically a victimless crime. In Arizona, it’s being put on the ballot “for medical uses.” That’s a start to ending this stupid, expensive and lost war. Let people smoke it, in the privacy of their own homes. It’s less dangerous on society than alcohol has been. And there is no credible proof that its use leads to heroin addiction.

Legalize it and tax it. But if I can’t smoke a cigarette in a restaurant, then do not allow lighting up a joint at a baseball game or a concert. Smoking is smoking, no matter the content of the tobacco.

What needs to happen is a real crack (pardon the pun) down on Meth.

 


Why they really want Rove, et al to disclose his donors

With the big noise that Obama’s making about so-called foreign donors to Republican action groups, it’s become clear that the Dems have their own motives for wanting to know who’s donating to these campaigns:

Democrats claim only to favor “disclosure” of donors, but their legal intimidation attempts are the best argument against disclosure. Liberals want the names of business donors made public so they can become targets of vilification with the goal of intimidating them into silence. A CEO or corporate board is likely to think twice about contributing to a campaign fund if the IRS or prosecutors might come calling. If Democrats can reduce business donations in the next three weeks, they can limit the number of GOP challengers with a chance to win and reduce Democratic Congressional losses.

The strategy got a test drive in Minnesota earlier this year after Target Corporation donated $100,000 cash and $50,000 of in-kind contributions to an independent group that ran ads supporting the primary candidacy of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. MoveOn.org accused the company of being anti-gay, organized a petition, and crafted a TV ad urging shoppers to boycott Target stores. Target made no further donations, and other companies that once showed an interest have since declined to contribute.

From the Wall Street Journal

This is despicable behavior by the left and causes a chilling effect on First Amendment rights. How do these people justify their actions or even look at themselves in the mirror?


Stupid Harry sticks his foot in it again – Just love this guy!

Chris Coons is Harry’s pet and the blogosphere is abuzz with this new little gem out of Harry’s mouth.  But Harry’s been Obamas lapdog since day 1 of this American nightmare called the Obama administration, so he should know best about being someone’s beloved pet.

From The Atlantic Wire:

  • ‘Well This Is Odd’ writes Mary Katharine Ham at The Weekly Standard. “Is there any way he could have complimented his friend and sounded more off-putting and out of touch with the electorate? …In my head, Harry Reid is Dr. Evil, creepily patting the head of Mr. Bigglesworth, the next senator from the great state of Delaware.”
  • This is ‘Sheer Dr. Evil Goofiness’ chuckles Allahpundit at the blog Hot Air. Does Reid, “not understand that his endorsement doesn’t help, even in a blue state? His national favorable rating is 26/56; I can’t find numbers for Delaware, but if The One’s approval rating is now underwater there, surely the vastly less likable Reid is deep into negative territory. Why would any semi-coherent Democrat want to nationalize this race in a year when the Democrats’ national brand is pure poison for their candidates?”
  • ‘Creepy Harry Reid Hands O’Donnell Her First General Election Ad’ concludes Michelle Malkin on her blog. “And go ahead, Democrats. Keep gloating about how you’ve got Delaware in the bag.”

Deconstructing some media bias

from USNews.com:

In a swift and unexpected decision, the Environmental Protection Agency today rejected a petition from environmental groups to ban the use of lead in bullets and shotgun shells, claiming it doesn’t have jurisdiction to weigh on the controversial Second Amendment issue.

Dontcha just love this media bias? For whom is the Second Amendment controversial? And why is it? It’s pretty clear to anyone who is literate:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But the media love to throw in these buzz words and phrases – like controversial – to confuse and/or manipulate the readers thought process. And isn’t it kinda strange to call anything in the Constitution “controversial”? I don’t believe that the Founders intended for that document to be “controversial”. I really believe that they wanted the people to understand it, wrote it so that the people would understand it and they didn’t expect that over 2 centuries later we would need constitutional attorneys to explain it to us.

But hey, that’s just me.

The decision was a huge victory for the National Rifle Association which just seven days ago asked that the EPA reject the petition, suggesting that it was a back door attempt to limit hunting and impose gun control. It also was a politically savvy move to take gun control off the table as the Democrats ready for a very difficult midterm election.

This is the real reason that the EPA dropped this whole thing. The NRA had nothing to do with it, even though they are absolutely correct that this is nothing more than the first step on the ladder to gun control. It was the administration that sent word to the EPA to lay off the bullet thing in order to make it easier on the Democrats who are swimming against what we all hope and pray will  be a tsunami this election year.

And then there’s this from ABCNews.go.com:,

A conservative Alabama Democrat often criticized for backing Nancy Pelosi as House speaker dodged a question about supporting her again next year by saying she might get sick and die before he has to decide.

If someone is going to say something tasteless, rude or stupid, it will have to be someone with the CONSERVATIVE label before their name, whether they are Democrats or pachyderms makes no difference. The media is going to make damned sure they work that word in, anytime they can smear those who have a conservative ideology.


From Fox Nation: New Republican ad that hits a home run


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 75 other followers