Saturday, March 7, 2009

Democrats Halted Crucial Regulations for Fannie and Freddie

Oy vey. This video, via  The Moderate Voice, is probably from around election time, but it never hurts to replay things like this so that certain parties and politicians cannot rewrite history, leaving them blameless for our current economic situation. You all know that the catalyst for basically all of the world's economic problems comes from the housing bust here, right? Watch and see the Democrats' reactions to Republicans' efforts to clean up Fannie and Freddie. Then get sick to your stomach and grab a barf bag when you realize that it's these same Democrats that are tasked with "fixing" the economy and so are in control of TRILLIONS of our dollars, with which they get spend where ever and however they choose. Depressing.

Push Back!!!

One of the greatest local organizations is the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. They are awesome. They are also hosting a petition, a movement, and a rally in Olympia on April 15th. It is called Push Back! No New Taxes! Now this is a separate event from the Nationwide Tax Day Tea Party, but the EFF's rally is at noon, and ours will be in the evening, closer to Seattle. I say the more the merrier! So for those of you that have the day off, or live nearer to Olympia, please, please try to attend their rally. Check out the links above, and at the very least, go sign their petition!!


Thursday, March 5, 2009

Democracy Bonds?

Hahahaaa. The Democrats are funny. Only they would be able to tell such a bald faced lie with such sincerity. After I left my pro-Rush suggestions for the Rush Billboard contest, I started snooping around their website. I found this page about "Democracy Bonds." It's basically tithing to the Democrats. The reason they need these "bonds" is because the evil, rich Republicans raise so much money that the Dems just need every one of us to pony up for them. Check it out:
The Republicans raise $10 million every month from corporate interests and lobbyists. The Democratic Party will never be able to compete in the traditional ways with a party that has abandoned the people and taken selling access and influence to a new level.But we can do it if half a million people are giving $20 a month to change the way our political process works.
Hmmmmm.... if I remember correctly, Obama was called "The Billion Dollar Man" due to his raking in of almost one billion dollars for his campaign. While many will try to say that it was just the work of all the people Liberty Belle! It was the little people giving $5 or $10, and there were just so many of them giving just what they could that he was able to raise so much! I will just list a few links for you to peruse to remind you of the scandles behind his donations that should have rocked the political world, but did not for some suspicious reason. I will also leave you some links about the gigantic influx of money into the Democrat's coffers from corporate interests, lobbyists and other wealthy financiers.

And please, the RNC would be pi$$ing themselves if they were able to raise that kind of money. I'd like to see where Dean got that information from because right now it seems like he just made that up out of thin air.

Donation Fraud Links:

Lobbyist and Corporate Donation Links:

That's enough for now. I just wanted to show how insanely laughable Howard Dean's poor-me sentiments are compared to you know, reality.

Keep on fighting the disinformation campaign folks. The Democrats are FAR from the party of the little people. They despise the little person. That much is evident in their treatment of Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, and every other bitter, gun- and religion-clinging member of the chattering class.


This is going to be a fun one!!! Via Michelle Malkin's website, the DNC is apparently soliciting slogans from the Obamabots to put up a billboard in Rush Limbaugh's hometown that will disparage the man. Jen O'Malley Dillon, the new Executive Director of the DNC says,
Can you help us come up with a message for Rush that we’ll place on a billboard right in his hometown? We’ll go through all the slogans we get, and the winner will have his or her message appear on the billboard — and receive a free T-shirt featuring the winning slogan.


This is the website where people will go to submit their slogans. I want all of us to submit slogans as well - only they will be pro-Rush slogans! Let's inundate them with slogans supporting Rush. Now obviously they will get a lot from the Obamabots, and of course they will not pick one of ours, but how annoying to be forced to read through thousands of pro-Rush slogans! Hahahahaha!

Now, because it is a DNC call to arms, they are asking for your name and email address and all that. If you don't want to give them your info, just make something up, or create a false (or dozens) email address through some web based email provider like Hotmail, Google, or Yahoo.


And for those reading that think Rush is horrible man because Robert Gibbs and other Democrats are saying that he wants America to fail, or he wants the American economy to fail due to his statement of wanting Obama to fail, here is a bit of the transcript from his speech at CPAC:
It didn't take long for people to get fired up when they figured out that they're going to be paying mortgages for people who should never have been lent money in the first place for the bogus excuse of maintaining property values in the neighborhood. This is something that -- the complacency of the American people is something they're going to rely on along with their authoritarian efforts to control it. But they will not succeed at this. Because we're not quitters. We don't acquiesce. We're not going to give up the American dream and watch idly while it is restructured and transformed. [Applause]

As I say, we want the best: Happiness for everybody. Now, about my still-to-me mysteriously controversial comment that I hope President Obama fails. I was watching the Super Bowl. And as you know, I love the Pittsburgh Steelers. [Cheers and Applause] So they have this miraculous scoring drive that puts them up by four, 15 seconds left. Kurt Warner on the field for the Cardinals. And I sure as heck want you to know I hope he failed. I did not want the Cardinals to win. I wanted Warner to make the biggest fool of himself possible. I wanted a sack, I wanted anything. I wanted the Steelers to win. I wanted to win. I wanted the Cardinals to fail. This notion that I want the President to fail, folks, this shows you a sign of the problem we've got. That's nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it, why in the world do I want what we just described, rampant government growth indebtedness, wealth that's not even being created yet that is being spent, what is in this? What possibly is in this that anybody of us wants to succeed?

If you believe that a President's policies will bring financial ruin to the country, do you want those policies to succeed? NO. Therefore you want him to fail - because his success in those policies would mean a broken American economy.

Democrats keep trying to say that Rush wants America to fail because if Obama fails, then we all fail. Sorry, that's backwards. America will succeed if Obama fails to implement his stranglehold over the economy.

(Note: the Dow has dropped from about 14,000 to just over 6,000 since just before his election...)

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Your Rush Roundup

Very short post tonight (I know everyone is thinking, finally!), only one link for you to check out: The Anchoress. I know everyone is talking about Rush, and she just has such a good roundup of all the different analyses and viewpoints. Go on over there, rummage around, see what you can see; there's some mighty fine stuff.

Final Lesson

Before I tackle some more of that fun comment left by a Western European who knows oh so much more than any American, (it shows because Europe has been doing so well for so long...) I would like to reiterate that the post I left about socialism was focused upon the hypocrisy of those that promote it as a viable and moral direction. The comment made no rebuttal to this point, so I assume we are in agreement: socialists, and by extension, President Obama and his cohort are all hypocrites. I will however continue to explain a few things to you before I move on (I will not be able to take so much time in the future to respond to individual comments, but hopefully these issues will be laid to rest, much like the socialist ideology.)

Alrighty! I've got my gloves back on; let's get down to business.

I love it when people say to me, "Obviously you don't know" something, as though I make pernicious claims just for the fun of it. I know it is hard for you to believe, but many, many conservatives are extremely well educated in economics, history, humanities, social sciences, mathematics, science, etc. Unlike the millions of American students who are imprisoned within the public school system, over which the government holds a monopoly, I was introduced to great thinkers and philosophers, and of course, to an accurate historical record of the world. These introductions obviously occurred outside of my revisionist, narrow-minded public school curriculum. Through these independent studies, I was (and still am) able to learn and think about various issues within a historical context as well as a topical context. This is commonly referred to analysis. So let's be done with this aspect: I know stuff, ok?

However, much to your dismay, we again agree on something. I concur when you posit that communist societies possess these characteristics: "freedom of speech and press are abolished, and opponents are exiled or imprisoned." Now, obviously you forgot to mention a couple of other important attributes of communism. FYI, nudge, nudge, communism is also, via Wikipedia:

a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.

There is a "socioeconomic structure" in place with communism. It involves much more than just a couple of characteristics. And lest I am accused of not going to the source, here is a statement from website of the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA):

We Communists believe that socialism is the very best replacement for a capitalist system that has served its purpose, but no longer meets the needs and requirements of the great majority of our people.

Huh. I'm confused... don't lefties always try to say that socialism has nothing to do with communism, and that connecting the two is a right-wing conspiracy to scare people away from socialism? Here is another excerpt from Wikipedia:

As a political ideology, communism is usually considered to be a branch of socialism
Soooo... what we have here is an explicit connection between communism and socialism. Socialism is the preferred economic system of communists. And now remember, our dear Western European friend, you are the one that told us of the harsh realities that exist inside a communist society; a place where "freedom of speech and press are abolished, and opponents are exiled or imprisoned." Your words, not mine.

Ask yourself this question, because it is obvious that you have not: why is it that a form of government that requires everyone to be the same, uses an economic structure that redistributes wealth from earners to non-earners, and punishes any sort of success whether that be economic, personal, physical, etc. is ALSO the same government that oppresses free speech, free press, and exiles, imprisons, or murders its opponents?

Answer: the government can only coerce people to live according to its will through the use of force and oppression to make is citizens comply.

Now, how does this relate to President Obama? Lucky for me, Randall Hoven at American Thinker just yesterday published an article on this very topic, saving me a lot of time. To summarize the article - which you must read in its entirety on your own - he simply lists the CPUSA's platform, line by line, and applies that list to Obama's actions to date. Guess what he found? You'll never guess, I'm sure.
Of 44 items on the CPUSA's list, 22 are already enacted, 21 are in work, 1 is being violated.

In conclusion, I would like to say:

Yes, Obama and the Democrat party leaders, Pelosi and Reid, are moving us towards socialism at warp speed.

Yes, I believe that the evidence to date (i.e. Obama's own statements, his background teaching and working in radical socialist/communist organizations, and his radical associations) and the historical precedent of socialism and communism gives us a clear picture about the precarious position of our individual freedoms and liberties in relation to Obama's policies.

Yes, I think it is obvious that your precious Western European nations are losing their freedoms and their liberty as each generation is infected with a larger sense of entitlement than the previous generation. Those countries are going bankrupt trying to keep up with all of the social programming that has been implemented over the years. (As an aside, wouldn't it be interesting to see how much money Europe could spend on these social programs of which they are so proud, and about which they feel so superior to us, if the USA were not completely funding their defenses, and have been since World War II? Just a thought...)

Yes, the open road to prosperity is congested for the citizens of Europe because of overregulation and the disincentives to produce that occur as a result of the high taxation that exists to support the immoral wealth redistributionist policies enacted by the socialist governments.

Finally, because I know you are concerned, after some yoga, meditation, and a shot of wheatgrass, I am finally at peace with the words that I chose to use... Wait, just kidding. After a lot of study, reading, investigation, analysis, and critical thinking on my part, I know I used, and continue to use, correct terminologies. If this still baffles you, then my advice to you is, try being a little more "choosy" about where you get your information from, after all, I wouldn't want people to question your credibility.

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

It's Like Trying to Explain why 2 + 2 = 4

Sigh. I do not understand why we must explain the reasons why free market advocates are not fans of socialism over, and over, and over, and over, and over again to the lefties. Luckily, I am a patient, patient woman and I will indulge you (and you know who you are) by trying to explain it yet again. I will begin by discussing the universal healthcare myth.

Healthcare is not a right for which the government is responsible to provide. Period. If you disagree, then you move to a country whose government provides it. Beyond it not being a right, there are pragmatic reasons why government should NEVER be responsible for healthcare. Two reasons that immediately make themselves clear are the decreases in quality and quantity of healthcare that occur when guv'mint takes over. When I say quality, I mean the standard of care drops significantly. Just ask all of the Canadians and Europeans who come to the US for care. When I say quantity, I am referring to the rationing of care. The only way for a government to control healthcare costs is to lay out a set of rules that determine whether or not your treatment is "cost-effective" to society as a whole. If your treatment is not cost-effective, too bad, uhh buh-bye. Gosh, that sounds like a pleasant society to live in! Can't wait 'til my parents are considered too old to get some drug or treatment so they are left to die. Oh wait! I'm being hasty. The government will provide them with assisted suicide options so that they will not be a slow drain on society. Whew. At least now we won't be putting "the biggest and oldest democracy on earth" to shame. 

If you care so much about non-insured people, here's an idea for you: why don't you start a charity whose sole mission it is is to subsidize the cost of health insurance for the poor. People could apply for some sort of voucher, based on their income level, in order to help pay for insurance. Or perhaps one family could sponsor another family - voluntarily - in the form of helping them to purchase health insurance. God forbid something like this be done outside of the halls of government. You know what, maybe it won't be free, but maybe it shouldn't be free. Did you ever think about that? It is a healthy thing to be held accountable and responsible for your own health. If you are invested in it, by having to pay for part of your care, why you might just take better care of yourself. It is called an incentive. If a person has no responsibility for his or her healthcare because the government pays for everything, then there is little incentive for that person to behave responsibly in regards to his or her health.

Additionally, with this kind of model, there is no confiscation of other people's money. It is a voluntary gift, from one human being to another. You are not committing a real injustice to cure an imaginary one. Again, it is immoral to take one person's money and dole it out at say, YOUR discretion. I-M-M-O-R-A-L. Say it with me, immoral. Maybe citizens would love to donate to something like this, but so far, the unimaginative left (and I admit, the leaders on the right haven't been too creative either) can only come up with more government, more government, more government. But let's keep on using the same tired models of more bureaucrats and a longer gauntlet for the tax dollars to move through so that at the end a few drops get squeezed out. That sure sounds like progress... or change... or something catchy.

And before you say something snotty like, "We Western Europeans..." implying that I'm some dolt who thinks Hamburg is a new meal at McDonald's, allow me inject some info here. I have lived and worked in Ireland for an extended period of time. I have lived and worked in Australia for an extended period of time. I have lived and worked in New Zealand for an extended period of time. I lived and worked in England, while attending the University of Oxford for a year. Soooooo I kind of know what I'm talking about. And while I'm at it, "We Americans..." are the most prosperous, successful, affluent people in the world, across the board, from top to bottom, because we base our society upon the Rule of Law and the Free Market; and we place Individual Liberty above the much vaunted but inadequate potential of "the collective." Also, your healthcare sucks in Western Europe. If you love it, you can keep it. I'd rather pay out of my own pocket (as I do now) for quality healthcare. You know, like the kind that allows me and every other woman to get a Pap smear anually to check for abnormalities like precancerous cells, unlike the healthcare in England that only allows women to go every three years, and it's like a 15 second exam there, a.k.a. completely inadequate.

PLUS - we have low income healthcare as it is, right now. All those millions of people are probably eligible for some sort of healthcare, but many of them choose not to sign up. You have to pay a little sometimes, but gosh, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? Not that a lot of those programs are even good programs, but there are already community health programs and discounted rates for people with little income. It is a sad, sad day when you become a slave to your government for a little bit of love here and there. 

Remember, with rights come responsibilities. If citizens do not have responsibilities, they have no rights.

I will deal with the rest of your comment tomorrow. I need some time to choose my words carefully... After all, I wouldn't want to lose my credibility...

G'night folks!

Monday, March 2, 2009

Another Example of the Arrogant Hypocrisy of Socialists

Let's get this out there: socialists and Democrats are hypocrites. Hyp - O - crites.  Allow me to list but a few instances, culminating with our very own Governor Chris(tine) Gregoire. 

The Nominee Tax Evaders:
  • Timothy Geithner - Obama cabinet nominee tax evader
  • Hilda Solis - Obama cabinet nominee tax evader
  • Tom Daschle - Obama cabinet nominee tax evader
  • Nancy Killefer - Obama cabinet nominee tax evader
  • Ron Kirk - Obama cabinet nominee tax evader (this article states that Kirk is the fourth Obama nominee to have evaded paying taxes, but actually he is the fifth, FYI to the LA Times)
The Sweetheart Mortgage Recipients:
  • Chris Dodd (D) - received a sweetheart mortgage deal from Country Wide, a company who's practices and relationship with Fannie Mae added to the housing mess.  Dodd is also the guy who gets to write the laws governing Country Wide's market, and who received the largest contributions from Frannie Mae itself.
  • Barack Obama (D) - received a sweetheart mortgage deal from Northern Trust, and was the third highest recipient of contributions from, you guessed it Fannie Mae (and after only a couple of hundred days in the Senate!) Obama's campaign also owes various cities across the US money for services rendered.
And last but certainly not least:
  • Charlie Rangel (D) - tax evader and the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (means he writes the tax code we all "have" to follow...) 
These people SHOULD NOT be allowed near any sort of legislative, executive, or judicial post. They willfully break the law by underreporting earnings, employing undocumented workers, or taking "sweetheart" mortgage rates not available to the rest of us, and they should not be allowed to govern! They are hypocrites because these are all the same people that demand that "the rich" pay more in taxes. They are the hypocrites that want to use YOUR money for THEIR social experiments and restructuring. They are the hypocrites that will rob you blind while not paying their own fair share. They are the hypocrites that stand on the floor of the House or the Senate, or at some campaign rally, and scream about how unfair it is that some people have more money than others, fomenting dangerous class envy for their own power hungry purposes. These are the hypocrites that demonize Wall Street and investors for even thinking about making money and wanting to keep most of it. Talk about audacity.

This is why socialism is a horrible idea. The naive and easily led masses believe that all class distinctions and income disparities will melt away, and that we all live equally in a peaceful utopia. What they fail to realize is that while we all become squatters living in filth with meager incomes, the government officials will be eating steak and drinking champagne in their warm, large mansions. While we will all be forced to use public transportation, the government officials will be riding around in their own private jets. At least in a capitalistic society, every single person has the opportunity to prosper. In a socialistic/communistic society, one can only be prosperous if one curries favor with those in power. That's it folks. That is it. That is the only way you and your family will be allowed to prosper. It's sickening that so many decent, compassionate, intelligent people fall for this faux utopia that will never, ever be able to exist so long as human beings are fallible and imperfect.

Now on to a very local, personal, specific example of this hypocrisy in action. As it states in my bio, I am engaged to be married (yippeeeeeee!!!) and my fiance and I are SO excited. While we would love to have a big wedding with all of our friends and family, and have a lovely sit down dinner with nice champagne, we are being realistic and trying to avoid being in debt just for a wedding. It will be a very modest affair, with a lot less people than we wanted, and held in a place a little further away from home that is a little smaller and a little older. However, I know it will be fantastic, and honestly, I only need my family, my fiance and his family to make it a perfect day. 

In another part of Washington however, an extraordinarily lavish wedding took place recently. I was flipping through the Winter 2009 publication of Seattle Metropolitan Bride & Groom, given to us at a registry event (I would never pay $5.99 for this rag), and I came across the section, "Real Weddings." Guess who the first story was about? The Governor's daughter Courtney Gregoire (whom I attended Girl's State with in high school, but that's another story) married Scott Lindsay on August 9th, 2008. Here are some details.

  • Scott and Courtney are both attorneys and met at their firm
  • The rings were from Tiffany & Co.
  • He proposed at her family's cabin in Idaho (so the Gregoire's have a second home)
  • There were 225 guests in attendance
  • The menu: Fresh caught regional seafood, Washington wine, locally grown produce, and as the hours wore on, they provided mini-burgers topped with blue cheese and caramelized onions.
  • The cake: Pink champagne cake with raspberry filling, and orange with buttercream
  • Favorite moment: it had been raining all day, but when Courtney and her father stepped out of the Governor's Mansion, a ray of sunshine came out
  • Out-of-town guests found gift bags waiting for them in their hotel rooms
  • Favors for guests: Chocolates made by friends that own a candy business
  • Honeymoon destination: Cook Islands and New Zealand
Why bring this up you might ask? Because Governor Gregoire and her entire party leadership dare to tell us that none of us should aspire to something as elegant and expensive as this. And you know this was a VERY expensive wedding. How dare she, and other Democrats, scold us and tell us that we don't have the right to keep our money in order to provide for our families in this same way! My parents would love to be able to provide this kind of wedding for their daughters, but they cannot. And that's fine! I do not envy the Gregoire's wealth. 

I don't give a rat's you-know-what about how other people live their lives or what they choose to do with their money. Good for them for having a wonderful and lovely wedding. I do however, deeply resent her hypocritical policies of taxing everyone else in order to pay for her social programming of choice. How dare she speak of raising taxes to pay for the $8 billion deficit that her mismanagement created, all while scolding the rest of us for "not caring" about the disadvantaged in our communities. Where is her compassion for all the poor people the Democrats always drags out as examples of the inequity of capitalism? Why did they not opt for a small, private, modest wedding and donate the rest to charity? I wonder what all of the poor Seattle residents that are duped into voting Democrat would think about her family's extravagance? 

Why is it acceptable for Christine Gregoire to splurge on her family, but regular American citizens are greedy, selfish and villainous for wanting to splurge on theirs?

I'm so frustrated by the gargantuan hypocrisy and two-faced policies of the left. It makes me feel sick to my stomach. Ugh. I don't even want to write more on this tonight. These people leave a bad taste in my mouth. Governor Gregoire, next time you want to scold and punish a small business owner who is providing jobs for our residents, and who is struggling to make ends meet as a result of the over-taxation of private business in this state, go look up the definition of HYPOCRITE in the dictionary and take a long, hard look in the mirror. But then again, it's hard to take that moment when you're busy spending other people's money.

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Trying to Deny our Grassroots Efforts

I'm going to piggyback onto my previous post about the article written about the Seattle Tea Party. Something I neglected to mention was a comment he made, in addition to a comment made by a sociologist from Eastern Illinois University. 

1. From Eugenia Deerman, a sociologist who studies conservative social movements - 
How grassroots the movement really is, is debatable, says Ms. Deerman at Eastern Illinois University. “I’m suspicious only because … the conservative movement has repeatedly used this tactic of creating an appearance of grassroots activism when they’re actually very well orchestrated,” she says. “It allows them to mask this ongoing ideological battle that’s super-invested in small government, low taxes, and a free market.”

2. From Dennis Mooney, a tweeter and self-described liberal, asked by TCOT to report on the Seattle Tea Party - 
What’s ironic about the teaparty concept is that is was hatched up by CNBC not #tcot. After having milked their Jim Cramer “they know nothing” moment for months CNBC management needed another scripted rant to boost ratings. That twitter upstart @stocktwits had the nerve to issue a call to boycott CNBC. They needed a new champion of the average person. Rick Santelli’s name got major applause today. Their plan worked. We have a new champion for the everyday guy who does not want to pay for his neighbors extra bathroom.

So it seems that we have an attempt to discredit conservative grassroots movements, and thereby their power and sincerity, by leveling a charge of "well orchestrated" or "corporate." It is a denial put forth in order to cool the rising passions and energy by trying to suck the life out. Let me just say this: I planned the first Porkulus Protest c-o-m-p-l-e-t-e-l-y on my own. I paid the $50 for the permit and I started emailing people. Not one GOP official, county or state, showed up or offered to help. I planned the Tea Party with the help of one other woman, again I paid the $50 for the permit, and we started emailing people. And again, not one GOP official helped. It is so insulting to insinuate that we are not an authentic, and admittedly ragtag, group of citizens that have finally had enough, and are finally willing to do something about it.

If anyone is well orchestrated it is the crowd that is funded by billionaire George Soros. It seems to me that she not so much studies conservative social movements as sits at home and postulates about them. I challenge her to actually come speak with some of us to see how far removed we are from any sort of official machinery, but I know it's a scary world outside that ivory tower.