A NEEDED HELPING HAND FOR TEXAS DEMOCRATS!

While I was at the Medina County Fair down here in Texas this weekend, I happened to pass the Texas Democrats' campaign booth, where bitter looking older folk were lecturing puzzled adolescents.

They have apparently adopted the slogans of  Battleground Texas, the "grass roots" organizing movement that is campaigning for and funneling out of state money into campaigns like abortion diva Wendy Davis's, to save the womenfolk and children from being slung out of public school by their hair or something.  That slogan: "Turn Texas Blue."

Well, the simple eloquence of that just won me over, and it got me to thinking, how else could we help these plucky underdogs and babykillers with their noble quest.

So I came up with a few ideas;

Our devoted readers are invited to add suggesttions in the comments as to what other things the Texas Democrats might turn Texas into (the first person who says "a newt" gets sent to the border to watch for incoming Priuses and Subarus with "Coexist" bumper stickers).

RINO Lugar blames Teabaggers for GOP Senate woes.

Gallant Dick Lugar, who has never met anyone who needed him he couldn't betray, from Filipina election workers threatened by Marcos' secret police to his own constituents, today claimed that Tea Party challengers cost the GOP their Senate Majority in 2010.

Never mind that they had already lost it in the elections of 2006 and 2009.



Lugar has made a career of thwarting efforts by the GOP on judges, gun control legislation, bank bailouts and appointments out of a McCainesque sense of self-importance and urge for media praise.  If he seriously thinks the GOP would have done better with the likes of Castle and Crist, he's not only out of touch with the American people, he's out of touch with what's going on in Washington.

Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock is Lugar's Tea Party-endorsed opponent in the primary.  Mourdock's campaign site is here.

Three Beers Later Poll: Who Do You Think Is Less Likely to Beat an Ethics Rap?

Who do you think is less likely to beat an ethics rap?
	Mitt Romney
	Newt Gingrich
	Ex-Porn Star Sasha Grey
pollcode.com free polls

Crazed RightWing Extremist Burns Barn!

...with AWESOME SPEECH!

WICKED! (A very conservative musical)

Bet they didn't see this when they voted it all those Tony Awards.  (Caution: if you haven't seen the play yet — but you do want to — some of these observations might hint at spoilers.  I'll do my best to avoid them).

1.  The public face of the villains is a charismatic airhead manipulated by sinister advisers (liberals)
2.  The ruler of Oz gains power by claiming to fix the weather (Hello, Al)
3.  The university is run by an ignorant, posturing bureaucrat who suppresses teachers holding minority views (84% of modern university professors self-identify as "liberals")
4.  Those teachers are denied the ability to speak. (liberal campus speech protests and codes)
5.  The heroine insists on standing up for her decent principles against state pressure (conservative)
6.  She champions the suppressed teacher (conservative)
7.  She takes responsibility for her own actions, good and bad. (conservative)
8.  The leaders try to get her to do all the work so they can take credit and increase their power (liberal)
9.  Her enemies blame her for their shortcomings and mistakes and try to punish her for their failings (liberal, hell - OWS)
10.  She redeems an enemy by her own courage and example (conservative)
11.  In the end, she opts out of the corrupt system. (conservative verging on libertarian)
12. The rich, privileged guy is a good guy (conservative)

Seriously, conservatives should all be going to see this play...

GOP's Deal to Sell Out...

(Note: In the spirit of Daily Caller cutting edge journalism, I have linked at random to humorous Youtube videos of Tourrette's victims...)

NO.  You already have 11 jobs bills sitting in the Senate, and three trade bills sitting on the Golfer-in-Chief's desk.  GIVE THEM NOTHING until they address the proposals in hand.

TO: House Republicans
FR: Speaker Boehner, Leader Cantor, Whip McCarthy, and Chairman Hensarling
DT: September 16, 2011
RE: The President’s Jobs Proposal


In August, we released our fall legislative agenda focused on implementing two key aspects of our jobs agenda, the GOP Plan for America's Job Creators: regulatory and tax relief for America’s small businesses, entrepreneurs and employers. This week, we completed action on the first of those items: blocking the federal government's National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from unilaterally telling businesses in what states they can and cannot open up for business. Also, this week the President sent Congress his proposed jobs bill. Having had a few days to review his proposal, we wanted to take this opportunity and provide you with some initial reaction.

Last week, prior to his address to a Joint Session of Congress, we wrote to President Obama to discuss potential ways forward on job creation. In addition to highlighting the numerous pro-growth jobs bills passed by the House and awaiting action by the Democrat-controlled Senate, we told the President: “While it is important that we continue to debate and discuss our different approaches to job creation, it is also critical that our differences not preclude us from taking action in areas where there is common agreement.” We stressed that “[w]e shouldn’t approach this as an all or nothing situation.”

We were hopeful that the President was interested in finding common ground as well. However, the White House and the President’s campaign demanded that the bill pass in its entirety. David Axelrod, the President’s top campaign advisor, told ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ that “We are not in negotiation to break up the package. And it’s not an a la carte menu.” Meanwhile, the White House Communications Director, Dan Pfeiffer, said, “The president said it 16 times, I’ll say it a 17th time today. He wants them to pass the American Jobs Act. That’s the piece of legislation he’s sending up.”

For the sake of 14 million Americans who are currently unemployed and the more than 4 million who have been unemployed for more than a year, we are pleased that the White House has begun to back away from that extreme. It is far more important that the focus be on delivering results for the American people rather than on the upcoming campaign. As the President himself said, “The next election is 14 months away. And the people who sent us here -- the people who hired us to work for them -- they don’t have the luxury of waiting 14 months.”

We believe there are areas of common agreement, and areas worthy of further conversation where agreement -- assuming there are good faith discussions -- may be possible.

Areas of potential common agreement and areas worthy of further discussion include:

• Extension of 100 Percent Bonus Depreciation: The President has proposed extending through 2012 the ability of businesses to expense 100% of the cost of certain property they place in service. Bonus depreciation, which has historically been a bipartisan proposal, makes it easier for businesses to invest now in new machinery and equipment.

• Addressing the Pending Application of Withholding on Government Contractors:Under current law as of January 1, 2013, businesses that provide goods or services to federal, state, or local governments will have 3% of their payments for such goods or services withheld. The President has proposed delaying this requirement until December 31, 2013. In the House Republican Fall Jobs Agenda, we proposed repealing this onerous withholding requirement.

• Small Business Capital Formation: The White House fact sheet accompanying the President’s speech includes a proposal to “reduce the regulatory burdens on small business capital formation in ways that are consistent with investor protection, including expanding ‘crowdfunding’ opportunities and increasing mini-offerings.” While the legislative proposal transmitted by the President failed to include any language to advance these goals, the House Financial Services Committee is in the process of considering legislation that (1) increases the threshold at which small companies are subject to full SEC regulation (the current threshold is nearly twenty years old); (2) increase the number of shareholders a company can have before triggering SEC registration; (3) remove the SEC restrictions on "crowdfunding" so businesses can use marketing, such as social networks, to raise capital from a large pool of small investors who may or may not be SEC accredited; and (4) remove SEC restrictions so businesses can use marketing to seek unlimited amounts of capital from SEC accredited investors.

• Incentives for Hiring Veterans: Current law includes employer tax credits for hiring disabled veterans (up to $4,800) and unemployed veterans (up to $2,400). These tax credits will expire at the end of 2011. The President has proposed expanding these credits. The House Veterans’ Affairs Committee is considering a more comprehensive effort to assist returning heroes, examining the range of challenges they face entering the workforce, including the need for education and training assistance and to address other barriers to employment. We believe there is an opportunity to make meaningful and significant progress in this area.

• Unemployment Insurance System Reforms: The President has proposed a number of reforms to the Unemployment Insurance (UI) system, including “bridge to work” programs that allow the unemployed to pursue work-based training and enhanced reemployment assistance programs to target those most likely to be unemployed for an extended period of time. House Republicans recommended some of these very ideas to the President at the end of 2009. While the President links these reforms to a blanket extension of extended (up to 99 weeks) UI benefits and new federal spending, there is no reason we cannot move forward on these areas of agreement.

• Free Trade Agreements: The President stated in his speech that, “Now it’s time to clear the way for a series of trade agreements that would make it easier for American companies to sell their products in Panama and Colombia and South Korea…” He also characterized this as a step that, “will require congressional action.” We agree. We will take action. But first, we need the President to take action and send us the agreements for our approval. We have repeatedly called on the President to unlock these agreements and clear the way for the creation of hundreds of thousands of new American jobs, while ensuring that we do not lose any more ground in our global competitiveness. In fact, last week we passed a bipartisan measure to extend the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). We hope this action, and pending action in the Senate, will allow us to move forward on all three agreements.

• Infrastructure Funding: The President has proposed $50 billion in “immediate” surface transportation funding and the creation of a new $10 billion national infrastructure bank. While spending to repair and improve infrastructure can play an important part in both short- and long-term economic growth, adding more money to the same broken system is more likely to produce waste and inefficiency than meaningful results. There are more than 100 federal surface transportation programs, many of which are duplicative or do not serve a federal purpose. Before spending new money, for example, we could act to end the mandatory set aside that diverts 10% of current surface transportation funds from roads and bridges to transportation museums and other “enhancements.” And the money we do spend ought to get to the job site faster. For example, of the highway funds provided over two and half years ago under the President’s stimulus bill, over 18% is still unexpended. In part, this is because of an overly complicated and bureaucratic approval process that everyone agrees ought to be fixed. Rather than adding more money to a broken system, Congress and the President should spend the next few months working out a multi-year transportation authorization bill that fixes these problems.

• Payroll Tax Relief: The President has proposed an extension and a significant expansion of the current payroll tax holiday. The President would more than double the amount of the holiday (up from $110 billion this year to $240 billion in 2012, including an expansion of this proposal to some of the employers’ share of these taxes), and would sunset the entire payroll tax holiday effective January 1, 2013. So while employees would see an additional temporary benefit from this proposal in 2012 (the President would modestly expand the current payroll holiday), they would experience a larger effective tax increase 12 months later when the payroll tax reverted back to its full level. There may be significant unforeseen downsides to large temporary tax cuts immediately followed by large tax increases. Compounding this negative effect is the scheduled increase in all individual tax rates, capital gain and dividend rates, and the elimination/reduction of various individual credits and deductions. In short, we are creating significant new uncertainty in an already uncertain economy. Moreover, the proposal increases general fund transfers to Social Security, something that needs to be carefully considered given the long-term challenges facing that program and the implications of those challenges for taxpayers. Finally, the President proposes to pay for this one-year expanded tax holiday by permanently limiting the ability of those earning more than $200,000 a year to take full advantage of their itemized deductions, including their charitable deductions. With over 40% of charitable deductions being claimed by those impacted by this proposed policy, the practical effect is a tax on and a reduction in charitable giving. This will negatively impact thousands of churches and non-profits. House Republicans are supportive of tax relief for working families and small businesses, but the temporary relief proposed by the President must not cause unforeseen harm to the economy 15 months from now and it shouldn’t be offset with permanent tax increases; and it shouldn’t come at the expense of the nation’s charities. That said, a commitment to honest and fruitful discussions between the White House and Congressional Leaders could lead to potential bipartisan agreement on a plan that avoids these downsides and provides tax relief for the middle class that encourages short- and long-term economic growth and job creation.
  
  There are also some aspects of the President’s proposal where it will be harder to find common ground. In addition to his proposed tax increases, we do not agree with the policies proposed by the President that are a repeat or continuation of spending from his 2009 stimulus bill. For example, the President has proposed:

• Payments to State and Local Governments: The 2009 stimulus bill included $53.6 billion in state stabilization funds under the guise of preventing the layoff of teachers, law enforcement officers, and other municipal employees. This band-aid approach masked over the true fiscal problems facing states and local governments. Some jurisdictions used the funds to provide one-time raises; others retained employees for a short-period of time, only to lay them off later. The President is proposing more of the same with an additional $30 billion in spending.

• Federal School Construction: School construction has historically been a state and local function. In his 2009 stimulus proposal, President Obama proposed approximately $20 billion for school construction, but the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected the proposed funding.

• Neighborhood Stabilization Grants: The President has proposed a $15 billion initiative to rehabilitate and refurbish homes. This proposal is strikingly similar to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program which has already received $7 billion in funding. There have been allegations of misuse of funds and little evidence that the program delivered the promised results. Five Democrats actually joined with House Republicans in voting to terminate the program earlier this year.

• Tax Increases: As the President himself has said, “…you don’t raise taxes in a recession.” With respect to the tax increases the President has proposed to pay for this package, many in his party seem to agree.
  
  Consider these quotes from just one news story this week:
  
  “Terrible,” Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) told POLITICO when asked about the president’s ideas for how to pay for the $450 billion price tag. “We shouldn’t increase taxes on ordinary income. … There are other ways to get there.”
  “That offset is not going to fly, and he should know that,” said Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu from the energy-producing Louisiana, referring to Obama’s elimination of oil and gas subsidies. “Maybe it’s just for his election, which I hope isn’t the case.”
  
  “If we’re going to change something, we got to be sure that we do it in the total [tax reform] package, that they know what the rules of the road are,” said Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.).
  
  Democratic Sen. Mark Begich, from the oil-rich state of Alaska, said it was “frustrating” to see the president single out the oil industry after calling on the congressional [Joint Select Committee] in last week’s address to Congress to find savings. “When you start singling out certain industries, there’s an unfairness to it,” he said in an interview. “On the pay-fors, I have a problem.”

• Tax Deductions and Exclusions: The President’s largest proposed tax increase is, as he describes it, on “the wealthiest Americans.” Perhaps it would more aptly be described as a tax increase on charitable contributions, mortgage interest deductions, and municipal bonds for states, etc. The President proposes to limit the value of certain deductions and exclusions for those with income above $200,000 ($250,000 for a couple). All but three Senators opposed an even more limited version this proposal when it was voted on in 2009, hardly the type of bipartisan agreement the President has claimed is his goal. It is understandable why this proposal is so vehemently rejected by the American people. Consider the impact of this proposal just on charities: more than 40% of all tax deductible charitable contributions are made by families impacted by this tax increase. Raising taxes on charitable contributions will mean smaller contributions and fewer resources for churches, food banks, universities, and other non-profits. During a week when it was reported that an astounding one in six Americans are living in poverty, why would anyone want to essentially penalize soup kitchens, hospitals, and churches that provide essential services to those hurting the most? Finally, this tax increase is the linchpin of a nearly half-trillion dollar permanent tax increase to offset another round of temporary stimulus spending and other tax changes. We actually changed the Rules of the House this year to prevent the use of tax increases to pay for more spending, a standard this proposal would violate.
  
  Making Progress
  We don’t question the President’s sincerity when he says he has crafted the right prescription for economic recovery. We believe good people can have honest disagreements without having their morals or commitment to country being called into question. To be clear, we don’t agree with portions of President Obama’s proposal, and Republicans have a different vision for the steps that need to be taken to help our economy get back to creating jobs. We are, however, committed to passing legislation to implement the policies in the areas where agreement can be found to support job creation and long-term economic growth. Over the past several days, many of you have approached us with ideas for legislation that meets these goals. We will be working with you and our committees in the coming days and weeks to schedule as many of these items as possible for consideration. It is our hope that Majority Leader Reid, the Democratic Majority in the Senate and President Obama will realize that while an all or nothing approach might make sense to some political advisors and communicators, it comes at the expense of making progress for millions of unemployed Americans -- and that is a tradeoff none of us should make.
   

This Week's Protest Sign in Studio City...

NOBODY LIKES A

LIMP

BOEHNER!

To Quote a Great American, Mike Huckabee Acted Stupidly... and Cowardly

Yes, Huck, virtuous women never get pregnant before marriage.  That's why no one ever heard the old saw Robert Heinlein liked to quote that "Everyone knows a willing bride can accomplish in six months what takes nine for cow or countess."


It has always happened to young women from good families of means.  And when those families had the moral courage to have and support the baby without casting the burden onto the community it has always been considered their own affair by all decent people outside the self-righteous old gossips (Ray Stevens' immortal "Sister Bertha Better-Than-You') Sitting in the "Amen Pew" at the front of the congregation... or ambitious, amoral louts seeking a political advantage.  After his behavior in the 2008 primary season, it's quite believable that Huckabee saw this as a clever backhanded swipe (From Portman to Bristol to Palin) at a significant political rival through two innocent young women along the way.


Not only that, it is an act of the most thunderous candy-assery.  First off, he lays this garbage on an intelligent, talented young woman who, by the way, can afford to have this child out of wedlock if she wants to with the fruits of her own hard work and give this child everything Huckabee condemns her for out of her own pocket.  Now what the hell business is it of any good conservative what Natalie Portman decides to do with her own damned wages?  None that I can see.


Then he gets it wrong.  Portman was engaged to be married, she and the baby's father are accepting their responsibility.  Something lacking in Huckabee's own checkered career.


This is just the latest in a long line of missteps by this incompetent cop-killing cracker who hides his own vanity behind the covers of his Bible and preaches virtue while stabbing his neighbors in the back.


In a smarter country than this one, it would be his last.  But since it's this country, let me spell it out in short words for Mike Huckabee and his backers.


Mike Huckabee will never be the President of the United States.


His issues don't matter.


His positions don't matter.


Even his lack of character doesn't matter.


If he runs he will be bathed in the blood of four dead policemen, if not by his rivals in the GOP primaries then by the Democrats in the general election.


Conservatives will not vote for a man who got cops killed because he confused his own pride with God's will.


Independents will not vote for a man who got cops killed for Jesus.


This is not like smoking pot in college, or having slept around before marriage.  People are dead because of Mike Huckabee.  And that will not go away, so he should.

Merlin Froyd on the Economy

Merlin Froyd on Redistricting California

Merlin Froyd, Sherman Oaks Debate Opening Statement

GOP Congressional Candidate Saves Tenants' Businesses, Dems Call Her Tax Cheat...

Ann Marie Buerkle assumes tenants' tax burden to keep businesses open.

Then her Democratic opponent accuses her of being a tax cheat for THEIR problems.

You Know What to Do.



HT: The Other McCain

"The Charade is Over"

From Christine O'Donnell:

Dear Patriot,

The charade is over.

We all knew that my opponent couldn’t hide behind the failed policies of Obama, Pelosi and Reid forever. Even the liberal media led by Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann can't cover up the truth.

Consider this: In 2009, while my opponent was a County Executive, he proposed a 25% property tax increase. Believe it or not, during a time of economic crisis, his plan was to raise taxes on homes and businesses by 25%! It wasn't to cut government, that's for sure.

But he was only getting started. During his tenure as County Executive, my opponent proposed raising property taxes a total of 47%! I can’t even imagine what he’ll do when times are good.

We already knew that my opponent will be a lap dog for Harry Reid. In fact, Harry Reid called my opponent “his pet”. But it appears he doesn't need Reid's influence to support more big government.

Instead of another Obama lap dog, we need real political leaders in Washington that will fight against the Obama, Pelosi and Reid agenda.

It’s obvious that Barack Obama and his cronies think they can just bully my opponent around to do what they say – and by his tax record, he’ll go along with it!

You know who the Democrats won’t push around?

Us.

We will not stand idle while the Democrats try their hardest to raid our hard-earned retirements. We will not sit by and watch Washington liberals give special perks to their cronies. I will not tolerate their liberal policies and I know you won’t either.

Time is running out for us to clean the Democrats out of Washington. You’ve read about my opponent’s tax record. Do we want more tax and spenders this in DC?

This election, our country faces an immense decision. Keep more of the same politics as usual in Washington or truly change the disastrous course our country is currently on.

The financial deadline is on September 30th and we must show the Democrats that we won’t be pushed around. The election is just around the corner and we must finish this campaign strong!

Sincerely,

CHRISTINE

P.S. Our country cannot sustain what the Democrats are doing to it for much longer! 

Hit the link to the left, folks! -- TBL

A thought for the year ahead...

We are poised on the brink of a major change in government.

Our leaders currently in power are entertaining themselves with clowns on our dollar and standing to applaud our enemies at the heart of our Republic while the troubles of our country go unaddressed; our leaders poised to resume power, by our sweat and sacrifice, seem uncertain whether they want to behave any differently, or instead spend their resources taking care of their dwindling circle of peers at the expense of the people.

Our wounded and weakened, ignorant, vain, insular, narcissistic and unready President faces a year without the support of his party, an agenda at odds with both reality and the needs of his country, and no tactic to deal with it save reinforcing failure.

Our intellectual and artistic icons are digging themselves deeper into a more extreme and irrelevant ideological pit, becoming shriller and angrier as they realize the mudfooted commoners are not only no longer listening, but mocking them, and finding other voices both new and old to listen to.

Factions and groups that have grown rich at our expense refuse to realize the purse is empty, and demand that last penny that has to be in there somewhere.

And all the while our country's wounds, self-inflicted and inflicted by others, lay open.

It's going to be an interesting year.  It will probably, a lot of the time, be a scary and ugly one.

So I offer a thought, from a man who had seen times even worse than these:

Give me, my God, what you still have;

give me what no one asks for,

I do not ask for wealth, nor success,

nor even health.

People ask you so often, God, for all that,

that you cannot have any left.

Give me, my God, what you still have.

Give me what people refuse to accept from you.

I want insecurity and disquietude;

I want turmoil and brawl.

And if you should give them to me,

my God, once and for all, 

let me be sure to have them always,

for I will not always 

have the courage to ask for them.

Corporal Zirnheld

Special Air Service 

1942

Merlin Froyd on Vodkapundit!

Excellent Interview with an Excellent Candidate!

It's the Ballot Box Smash that's taking the nation by storm!

Murkowski Concedes — Teabagger Bags AK GOP Nomination

Joe Miller, Tea Party/GOP Candidate for the US Senate

BREAKING NEWS: Cornyn, Sessions, Steele have released a statement: "The people of Alaska and states across the nation are sending the GOP a clear message" and promise to "reinvigorate the party." They then announced a program to court Democratic gay liberation theologists of color for the remaining primaries nationwide and 2012.

Proud Republican Candidate Meg Whitman Endorses Illegal Immigration...

...but only in Spanish:

She's also running Spanish language TV commercials with the same message.

Meanwhile her street teams are attending GOP meetings and handing out English-language fliers touting Whitman's opposition to illegal immigration.

She's not even trying to hide her contempt for the GOP and its voters. Hope she picks up enough latino votes to make up for the ones who are going to stay home...

Coulter, Limbaugh Defend Steele's Comments on Afghanistan...

Here's a thought: Michael Steele was tone-deaf, ill-considered and wrong to adopt the language and tactics of the Democrats, using Afghanistan for cheap political advantage while we have troops on the ground, in contact, in Afghanistan.

Unless, of course, in Michael Steele's world the GOP just isn't all that different from the Democrats...

What Michael Steele did was EXACTLY what the left did to Nixon over Vietnam. The litter wasn't even cleaned up from the inauguration before the war JFK began and LBJ escalated bcame 'Nixon's War' and they dumped everything from Gulf of Tonkin to Tet in his lap. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

If conservatives want to score points on Afghanistan, what exactly will they say? That Afghanistan is not important enough to warrant the casualties? Then it didn't warrant the casualties we took there under Bush and the GOP. That the war is lost and we should pull out? That we should scale down to 2008 levels and watch Afghanistan crumble around our outposts? Substitute the last helicopter out of Kandahar for the last helicopter out of Bagdhad?

...Look, I hate writing this. I hate even having to approach defending Obama. But it's one thing to condemn Obama's ineptitude and another to assign him personal blame for a national endeavor that predates him. And THAT's what Democrats do, that's what Michael Steele did, and it's wrong. It a boneheaded and frankly hypocritical move that could backfire on the GOP.

Just the kind of move Michael Steele likes.

What Ho,the Yeoman Republicans!

Doc Zero has a great piece on the backbone the GOP is growing itself in spite of its own head...