Posts Tagged ‘Tough Talk’

A Progressive Solution to What Ails Detroit!

by John Lillpop on Sunday, July 21st, 2013

This is article 162 of 197 in the topic Liberalism

Satire

In 2012, President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign included the following statement:

“I wasn’t going to let Detroit go bankrupt.”

Like scores of other promises that Obama proffered, the tough talk on Detroit has turned into mush. In fact, Detroit has filed for bankruptcy protection.

True, that filing has been put on hold by a judge; however, the matter will eventually be adjudicated in a manner not likely to please Detroit politicians, debtors, or residents.

Some liberal commentators are calling for the federal government to bail out the once proud and great Motor City, but given the nation’s 17 trillion debt and the makeup of the US Congress, smart money is not betting on Detroit receiving a check from the US Treasury anytime soon.

Progressive scholars are working on an economic strategy to save Detroit and serve as a model for other troubled cities across the land.

Initial ideas for the Save Detroit think tank include the following:

  • Increase the minimum wage to a “living wage.”
  • Make union membership mandatory for all employment in the city.
  • Increase taxes paid by businesses, small and large.
  • Enforce a total ban on the sale and ownership of all guns in the city.
  • Make welfare and food stamps more accessible. The progressive motto should be, “Everything for everyone!”
  • Forbid the use of criminal background checks, credit history, and other overly intrusive and discriminatory measures by employers in pre-employment screening.
  • Use City government to promote Democrat politicians for elective office. A zero tolerance program for Republican office seekers would be in the best interest of the city, county, state, and nation.

Any resemblance between the above elements and the current situation in Detroit is purely coincidental and must not be used to discredit progressive elitists!

John W. Lillpop
San Jose, California

Go straight to Post

Don’t Jump The Gun

by Bob Livingston on Friday, August 26th, 2011

This is article 209 of 1300 in the topic 2012 Elections
Don’t Jump The Gun

CNN Seven potential Republican Presidential candidates participated in a debate hosted by CNN in June.

In track, a gun is fired to signal the start of the race. If a runner leaves the block before the starter fires his pistol, it is called jumping the gun.

The Republican race for a Presidential nominee seems to have started already, but I want to caution you about jumping the gun. By that, I mean don’t glom onto the candidate flavor-of-the-month until you have vetted him or her properly.

I have seen so many people commenting that they’re supporting Herman Cain or Governor Rick Perry or Representative Michele Bachmann because the candidate gave a fiery speech or issued tough-sounding sound bites. Some people are even encouraging Governor Chris Christie or Representative Allen West to join the fray because the two are often shown being tough with reporters.

Nice hair, a pretty face, a high brow, fancy clothes or tough talk does not a candidate make. Those are all façades that are created by slick political operatives. (See Barack Obama.)

Change for the sake of change is not the answer when the change we get is more of the same. So, I urge you to peer behind the wall the candidates have thrown up to hide their true selves. Look into each candidate’s background. See where they stand, where they once stood and learn why they moved, if they did.

And certainly don’t take all that you read or hear in the mainstream media as fact. Remember, the MSM have their own agenda, and it probably doesn’t jibe with yours.

Look for the candidate who has always been truthful and steadfast. Look for the one who has always supported the Constitution. Look for the one who has never been a lackey for corporatocracy or crony capitalism. Look for the one who hasn’t shied away from taking a tough, if unpopular, stand. Look for the one who isn’t beholden to Party. Look for the one who believes we should, as Jack Hunter writes, “only wage wars of national defense — not irrational offense.”

And finally, look for the candidate who offers you a new paradigm. The one we’ve been in the past 100 years certainly hasn’t worked.

On A Different Note

Tune into TLC Sunday night for a one-hour special, “Livin’ for the Apocalypse,” which is slated to premiere at 10 p.m. EDT. Our own Peggy Layton and her family are featured on the show, which highlights what some people are doing to prepare for the coming collapse. You should pick up some excellent preparedness tips.

Go straight to Post

Caution to Illegal Aliens: Don’t Sup of Obama Kool-Aid!

by John Lillpop on Thursday, May 12th, 2011

This is article 170 of 464 in the topic Immigration

Although it is normally below my pay grade and moral inclination to give aid and comfort to invading criminals (the non-PC, factually-correct term for illegal aliens), President Obama’s dastardly display of deceit and disrespect at the border in El Paso was so fraught with fraud and abuse that one MUST shout out

Note please that this is NOT available in Spanish, so perhaps most illegals will never even know that it exists.

On to the subject at hand.

Despite Obama’s clever jokes around about moats and alligators and the tough talk to jolt Republicans out of their racist ivory towers, comprehensive immigration reform, at least the version favored by the President and most Democrats, ain’t gonna happen anytime soon!

Do not—repeat, do NOT—bet your farm on being legalalized anytime soon, despite the glowing words from Obama.

Remember, this is the same guy who promised “reform” as part of his election campaign nearly three years ago!

And what has he accomplished so far? Like, nada. Nothing, El zero.

You see, amigos, here in America, the President is just one piece of the government. In order for dramatic change to occur, the United States Congress must agree with the president.

To date, Congress has been unwilling to allow foreign invaders (y’all!) to cut in line ahead of millions of other people around the world waiting to come here.

It’s called basic fairness and rule of law, two concepts which President Obama rarely mentions and never favors.

Most of the opposition to amnesty for invading criminals comes from Republicans who believe that a nation of laws should abide by those laws. Most American citizens agree.

What you need to know is that last November, the American people voted in important elections from coast-to-coast. Those elections resulted in a massive rejection of President Obama’s policies and the election of more than 65 new Republicans to Congress.

Our new Congress is vastly different than it was before November 2, 2010. Now Republicans are in control of the U.S. House and have more power in the U.S. Senate.

All of which means that President Obama has treated you like loco hombres with his silly talk. In truth, immigration reform is a dead issue for the foreseeable future.

Obama’s musing about moats and alligators was nothing more than a cruel tease, or as the politicians say, an attempt to “rouse the base.”

Although Obama’s proposed amnesty, including a path to citizenship for invaders, is made of whole fairy dust, you will be pleased to learn that there is already a PATH TO CITIZENSHIP available to those willing to follow the rules and wait their turn.

Simply apply for citizenship at any official U.S. Immigration Services Office.

Tell them Obama sent you, and Fair and balanced treatment is guaranteed!

One final point about this president: In June of 2008, while running for election, Obama chided Americans who complain that new- comers do not learn English.

Obama’s response was “Americans need to learn Spanish!”

That was nearly three years ago. How do you suppose the President’s Spanish is progressing? Is he now a bilingual liar?

Go straight to Post

Intervention Failure in Washington: Budgets, Addicts and Enablers

by Paul A. Ibbetson on Sunday, April 17th, 2011

This is article 95 of 526 in the topic Government Spending

I feel two percent happier today, as that is the amount of the 2011 federal budget that has been trimmed by the recent political negotiations that averted a government shutdown. Here are the numbers: the CBO estimates that our spending for 2011 will be $3.7 trillion. Congressional leaders have just taken the nation through a gut-wrenching, televised mini-drama over the last few weeks and after all the wrangling and tough talk, $38.5 billion in spending cuts, a meager two percent reduction of the projected budget, were agreed upon. Really? That’s the best they could do? Let’s get real about our country’s spending situation.

Washington has an addiction to spending today that is not unlike an alcohol or crack addiction. The failure to reduce spending by any noticeable amount simply places a magnifying glass on a problem that Americans have been opposing for some time. The most unfortunate part of this destructive government spiral is that you and I, the American people, are having the flip the bill for the spending “monkey” that resides on the backs of our politicians in Washington. Both parties are to blame here but the parts they played in this recent budget cutting debacle are different. Let’s call them out.

The Barack Obama-backed Democratic Party is on a terminal spending bender. There is no desire to cut spending; there is no acknowledgment that the country is drowning in debt, nothing. Like the addict, liberals are in full denial of their addiction and unless stopped, they are going to ride the “American Money Train” until the wheels fall off. And yes, the wheels will eventually fall off. The Republican Party is in a different position. Their recent ascent back to political relevancy following the 2010 midterm was on a pledge to the American people to reduce government spending.

The recent budget deadline was the golden opportunity for Republicans to take a stand for the American people and truly reduce government spending. If it were to be done, it would have to be accomplished against the vehement opposition of the Democratic Party. This was truly an intervention moment. Republicans had the opportunity to corner Democrats and pull the government spending “bottle” from their lips. It wasn’t going to be pretty; interventions never are. Like the addict, Democrats in Washington don’t want to give up their addiction and it was not a surprise to see them lashing out verbally at the sight of a potential intervention. Terrible statements such as Democrat Harry Reid’s rant that “Republicans want to shut down the government because they think there’s nothing more important than keeping women from getting cancer screenings,” or the words of Democrat Eleanor Holmes Norton who said that a government shutdown was the “functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians,” or Democrat Louise Slaughter who said that the GOP was here to “kill women,” and that Republicans were like “Nazis,” were common rebukes from the money-addicted left. These statements were vile and untrue but they were to be expected. You might say it was the “drugs” (money) talking.

Click to continue reading “Intervention Failure in Washington: Budgets, Addicts and Enablers”
Go straight to Post

Romney goes weak on cutting entitlements?

by John Lott on Wednesday, April 13th, 2011

This is article 3 of 8 in the topic Entitlement Programs

What is worse here? To have Romney really not be that interested in cutting entitlements or having him tell the donors that because he thought that was what they wanted to hear?

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney surprised donors this morning at the Harvard Club in New York with an ambivalent answer to the question of whether America is ready to seriously alter its large entitlement programs.

Romney, speaking to more than 100 donors and supporters at the private breakfast, responded to a question from his supporters on the issue.

“I don’t know,” he replied, according to a source in the room, before going on to warn that Social Security and Medicare are — in the source’s paraphrase — “basically the third rails in politics and he doesn’t know if we’re going to be able to actually make a dent in reforming them.”

“It was really soft rhetoric, definitely not the kind of tough talk that’s going to be necessary in a Republican primary,” the source said.

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom, however, said in an email that Romney’s not ambivalent about entitlements. . . .

Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin