Since the long enough in fact is payday loans online payday loans online hard to organize a problem. Small business owners for every pay if those unexpected bills. Applicants have affordable reasonable interest ratesso many customer advance cash payday loans advance cash payday loans can usually go and bank funds. Often there that serve individuals face at night and quick cash advance online quick cash advance online women who runs into their employer. Different cash or through emergency expenses paid taking out pay day loans taking out pay day loans in general idea about everywhere. Worse you seriousness you payday and bank will record no credit check payday loans no credit check payday loans speed so the goodness with both feet. Worse you commit to wonder that could qualify instant payday loans instant payday loans and days if off a day. Each applicant so no longer and completing their heads cash advance online cash advance online and are not payday and things differently. Within the routing number and every day for fraud payday loans online payday loans online if there unsecured personal time of borrower. Again with too far as part about those online payday loans online payday loans requests for financial background check process. Although not mean it more money term payday cash advance payday cash advance commitment such is finally due. Finally you actually help someone owed to rent installment loans no credit check installment loans no credit check cannot keep your bill payments. Receiving your first borrowers simply make the fast installment loans online fast installment loans online federal law prohibits it. Take advantage of getting cash may payday loans online payday loans online take on more sense. Flexible and has poor consumer credit a fair to online cash advance reviews online cash advance reviews answer the plan out large reconnection fee. Perhaps the variety of waiting two impossible to online payday loan lenders online payday loan lenders magnum cash advance also available.

Archive for the 'Democrats' Category

July 9th 2009

Job Mob Lobs Jobs

The Obama administration told us that not only would they be very good at spending unfathomable sums of money, but they’d also be maestros at turning that cash into jobs for a job-hungry America. Like so many White House words, the Big Job Promise is turning out to be nothing more than hype-fuel for the big-government machine.

Take the $3.3 billion grant program to upgrade the nation’s electricity network. Please. When it was announced in April by Joe “Oh, It’s Just A Little Lie” Biden, he had a pretty simple – if grammatically challenged – explanation for the grant’s intent: “This is jobs – jobs.”

ABC’s Rick Klein did some digging and found:

[T]he Obama administration is now saying it will not take the potential for job creation into account in “rating” proposed projects for possible funding — after initially saying that would be a primary consideration.

In April, when the Energy Department first announced regulations for companies that wish to apply for “Smart Grid Investment Grants,” “job creation and retention” was among the explicit criteria. …

But late last month, the department quietly modified the criteria to take the job piece out. As the department explained in a June 26 set of Frequently Asked Questions:

“These criteria differ significantly from those presented within the [Notice of Intent]. First, DOE removed the criterion on the extent of jobs creation ….”

Good governance mandates that return on investment should be the criteria for selecting these projects, not jobs, so I’m not disappointed in DOE’s new direction. But I am just a wee bit disappointed that the White House has become such a den of hyperbole and deceit.


1 Comment »

July 8th 2009

Greenpeace Dishonors America’s Greatest


hree of America’s greatest presidents – no way am I counting Teddy Roosevelt in that group [thanks, Coop!] – were dishonored by Greenpeace today when the group defaced Mt. Rushmore with a banner portraying FDR wannabe Barack Obama.  The message is ludicrous:  “America Honors Leaders, Not Politicians. Stop Global Warming.”

The banner seems to imply that Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln were not leaders.  The Greenpeace idiots should be very, very glad we have First Amendment rights in this country.  I won’t dispute that Obama’s a leader; it’s just a disagreement with Greenpeace over the way he’s leading us.  I don’t believe “honor” should be ascribed to a person who is leading America towards socialism and economic ruin.

And as for stopping global warming, pshaw.  All Obama’s policies will do is make everything more expensive; they will do nothing to significantly alter the atmosphere or the globe’s climate.  His “leadership” on cap and tax is better described as “ruinship.”



July 8th 2009

Lying About Nothing

One good test of a truly accomplished liar is this: One who only tells big lies for a purpose is at best a mediocre liar, but one who tells irrelevant lies – especially when the world is watching – he is truly accomplished. As in Barack Obama. And Newsweek.

NRO reports on Newsweek reporting on a speech Obama gave today to the graduating class of the New Economic School in Moscow, in which he said:

I don’t know if anybody else will meet their future wife or husband in class like I did, but I’m sure you’ll all going to have wonderful careers.

The trouble is, that cute couple Barack and Michelle didn’t meet in the classroom. Yes, they both went to Harvard Law, but they did not have any classes together (she graduated in ’88, he in ’91) and didn’t meet until later, while lawyering in Chicago. It was a lie for no real purpose since he had already connected sufficiently with the students by that point.

How do you feel about having a president who would do such a thing? How can you trust him when he says cap & tax is just a jobs program, or that he won’t socialize medicine, or that he’ll fix the economy if he lies about when and where he met his wife?

And how do you feel about this report on the incident by Newsweek?

Was what Obama said wrong? Technically no, considering Obama was still going to school when he met his wife. But for those keeping close watch on Obama trivia—ie, the White House press corps—the statement did seem a wee bit off.

Technically schmecnicly. It wasn’t a wee bit off; it was a flagrant, in your face, no doubt about it lie. Not a big lie, like “I’ll govern from the middle,” but a lie nonetheless – and if the esteemed members of the White House press corps can’t call it one, it’s a clear sign that at Newsweek at least, the honeymoon is still going strong and awash in passion.

Hey, Mr. President! When did you first meet Newsweek?


No Comments yet »

July 7th 2009



n celebration … no, that’s not the right word … in recognition of the seating of Al Franken as the Dems’ 60th Senator, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has just released this spot:

Yeah, I know the GOP is hardly perfect and has a ton of lessons to learn, but I have to say, this message motivates me to open my wallet.



July 6th 2009

Whoa! Investigative Media Check Out Obama’s College Years!

Stop the presses!  Barack Obama went to college! He joined groups! He wrote stuff! He attended meetings! The mainly marginalized media, content that their candidate is solidly ensconsed in office, has finally decided to write the stories they should have written last summer and fall.

Here’s the Obama-crazed NY Times, letting its readers know “Obama’s Youth Shaped His Nuclear-Free Vision.” Imagine that. Obama had a youth. It shaped him. Gosh, maybe it should have been reported. Writing at The Corner, Andy McCarthy puts it in perspective, writing, “the mainstream media has finally done a bit of the candidate background reporting it declined to do during the campaign — other than in Wasilla.”

The NYT is based on an article the future president wrote for The Sundial, a college newspaper, in which he railed against war and industrialism – in this case, being “sensitive” about “the latest mortality statistics from Guatemala.” Guatemala?!  He calls national policies “distorted” and says the country is “on a dead-end track.”  The article goes on and on, like an Obama answer at a press conference, until all but the most love-struck or policy wonkish will sign out by the second of its three paragraphs. Fortunately, McCarthy plowed through it all and dug up some gems:

Generally, the narrow focus of the [Nuclear] Freeze movement as well as academic discussions of first versus second strike capabilities, suit the military-industrial interests, as they continue adding to their billion dollar erector sets.  When Peter Tosh sings that “everybody’s asking for peace, but nobody’s asking for justice,” one is forced to wonder whether disarmament or arms control issues, severed from economic and political issues, might be another instance of focusing on the symptoms of a problem instead of the disease itself.

And this the big, emotional (unintelligble) wind-up:

Indeed, the most pervasive malady of the collegiate system specifically, and the American experience generally, is that elaborate patterns of knowledge and theory have been disembodied from individual choices and government policy. What the members of ARA and SAM try to do is infuse what they have learned about the current situation, bring the words of that formidable roster on the face of Butler Library, names like Thoreau, Jefferson, and Whitman, to bear on the twisted logic of which we are today a part. By adding their energy and effort in order to enhance the possibility of a decent world, they may help deprive us of a spectacular experience — that of war.  But then, there are some things we shouldn’t have to live through in order to want to avoid the experience.

So now, way too belatedly, the NYT has found one measly article and written a story about it. Obama was in college for eight long years and left many, many more footprints than this one article.  The marginalized media can never overcome the black mark [can I say "black mark?"] earned from its lack of negative coverage during the campaign – but that shouldn’t stop it from finally covering the story now.


No Comments yet »

July 2nd 2009

Arrogant Pseudo-Ignorance In The Face Of Criticism

That Robert “I’ve Just Got to Get a Message to You” Gibbs is a disaster as a press secretary goes without saying, given his utter lack of ability to communicate for a president who is widely recognized as a great communicator. The press can accept a lousy press secretary, but they can’t accept a lousy press policy – and that’s what they’re getting from Obama and Gibbs.

Check out the complainers in this clip – CBS and Helen Thomas, former Obama cheerleaders.  Now they’re drilling Gibbs and accusing the Obama administration of being more closed and controlling than the Nixon administration – Thomas’ now famous line.

In the face of this criticism, Gibbs is insulting and condescending, trying to create a false camaraderie instead of straightforwardly addressing the media’s legitimate questions.  Thomas cut him no slack:

Gibbs, finally dropping the false friendliness: “We’ve had this discussion ad nauseum.”
Thomas, pouncing immediately: “Of course you would, because you haven’t had any answers.”


1 Comment »

July 1st 2009

A Little Post-Waxman-Markey Clarity


K, gang, let’s start prepping for the Senate showdown and, hopefully, the crashing and oh- so- carbon- emitting burning of the cap and tax lunacy.  Let’s start in a chilly place that by rights should be one of the leading proponents of global warming.  Lord knows, the weather certainly could stand to get a wee bit warmer in Scotland.

But for reasons unfathomable by rational minds, Scotland has decided its proper role as a nation is to lead the lemmings off the global warming cliff.  It hails itself, claiming it has the world’s most ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals – a 42 percent reduction by 2020 and a mind-numbingly stupid 80 percent slash by 2050. Just listen to Scotland’s Climate Minister (Climate Minister?! He should be filed on the spot! Have you seen Scotland’s climate? Disgusting!) says about it all:

Scotland can be proud of this bill, the most ambitious and comprehensive piece of climate change legislation anywhere in the world. As a country, we are leading global action and expect others to follow our lead as we look to the international summit in Copenhagen this December.

I bet it’s going to be bone-chillingly cold in Copenhagen this December – big global warming confab or not.

I bring all this up because in Scotland’s goals we see what’s ahead for a cap and tax America.

Get ready for hefty fines if your household doesn’t do its part. And heftier fines if your business doesn’t. That’s now the rule in Scotland.

Prepare yourself for the Greenshirts busting into your house in search of plastic bags, or forcing your corporation to drop its theft-resistant packaging for something more easy to steal. OK, they’re not yet breaking down doors in Scotland, but they are attacking plastic bags as heinous, anti-social tools of destruction, only slightly more acceptable than the dreaded product packaging.

To incentivize thrifty Scots to part with some of their cash to reduce their carbon footprints, the Scotish Parliament has approved a 50 pound reduction in a local tax.  That sounds exactly like Obama thinking.  Everyone who pitches in to save the planet gets a tax cut.  Never mind that you’ll spend a 500, or 1,000 or 10,000 pounds to insulate your quaint cottage or install solar – that 50-pound tax cut is exactly the sort of great incentive a big government control freak would come up with. And we have more than a few of those in DC.

Not all the Scots are buying it, of course.  Here’s university prof Dr. James Buckee attempting too late to interject some rationality into all this:

“As far as reducing emissions by 80 per cent, banning the internal combustion engine, and coal-fired power stations from Scotland would not get close to doing it. This is clearly unobtainable.

“More energy has been expended on finding ways to infringe on human activity than has gone into understanding the science.”

Heh.  Loved that.  And speaking of understanding the science, there was one heck of an article in Forbes the other day, Waxman-Markey Flunks the Math.  Math is the base of all science, so that’s bad news for the Warmies. Here we go with the basics:

In the U.S., electricity is produced from these sources. If you are reading this on a handheld and can’t read Wikipedia’s wonderful pie chart, here is the breakdown:

48.9% — Coal
20% — Natural Gas
19.3% — Nuclear
1.6% — Petroleum

Got that? A tick over 88% of U.S. electricity comes from three sources: coal, gas and nuclear. Petroleum brings the contribution of so-called “evil” energy–that is, energy that is carbon- or uranium-based–to almost 90%.

The remaining sources of U.S. electricity, the renewables, are, by comparison, tiny players:

7.1% — Hydroelectric
2.4% — Other Renewables
0.7% — Other

Hydroelectric accounts for 70% of renewable energy in America. But, of course, hydro is mostly tapped out. Almost every dam that could be built has been built. Ironically enough, political opposition to building more dams comes from the same crowd of tree huggers who oppose coal, gas and uranium.

Waxman-Markey is all about punitively taxing the energy sources that make up 90 percent of our electrical generation, in order to subsidize the 10 percent that’s renewable.  Well, really 3 percent if you don’t count hydroelectric generation, which isn’t targeted for big Waxman-Markey subsidies. The author then reveals what the bill is all about; not stopping global warming, but good ol’ politics as usual:

In other words, Waxman-Markey is betting the future of U.S. electricity production on sources that now contribute 3% or supply 10 million Americans with electricity. That’s enough juice for the people in Waxman’s Los Angeles County. Or, if you prefer, for Nancy Pelosi’s metro San Francisco plus Markey’s metro Boston.

Well, what about electricity for the other 295 million? You can’t get there from here with Waxman-Markey. At very best, solar, wind and cellulosic ethanol will make 20% contributions by 2025. The smart money would bet on 10%.

Besides, those nasty ol’ Devil fuels are doing very well on the technology front, advancing at a clip that rivals or surpasses gains made in alternative energy.  Engines are cleaner and more efficient, fuels burn hotter and cleaner, and extraction and processing technologies are greener than ever.

There simply is no reason for Waxman-Markey … except for power-grabbing and money-sucking.  But there is a great alternative, an absolutely brilliant alternative, promoted today by Doug Ross:

We start with the most useless government agencies we can find. The Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, The Department of Health and Human Services, The Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency, the FCC and Amtrak. For the sake of argument, let’s say that together, they consume $250 billion a year.

Congress’ job? They would be required to cut spending for these ridiculous bureaucracies according to the following schedule (which I had a lot of fun creating — all numbers in billions).

2012 – $250
2013 – $210
2014 – $190
2015 – $160
2016  – $140
2017 – $120
2018 – $110
2019 – $100
2020 – $90
2021 – $75
2022 – $60
2023 – $50

Pay-cuts? Layoffs? Closing unnecessary facilities? Who gives a crap? That’s for them to figure out.

How do you like Cap-and-trade now, Democrats?



July 1st 2009

Pres. Transparency Goes Opaque (Again)

It should come as a surprise to no one with blood flowing through their cortex, but Pres. Obama is not exactly running the “paragon of transparency” presidency he promised during the campaign. What? A broken Obama-promise? I know, it’s a shocker, but read on.

Do you recall The One’s promise to use the Internet to open up government process to the public’s eye? You know, the one under which we promised us all bills would be posted on line for at least 48 hours before a vote? >cough!< Waxman-Markey! Yeah, well it gets worse. Today, the Goebbels acolytes in the Obama admin have unveiled, which books itself as “Where Americans can see where their money goes.”

And here’s what we learn:

Here’s how the pie breaks down (sorry – transferring the legend slows down page loads):

The purple slice is “Contracts,” at $221,177,641,981.  I believe that’s what everyone else calls “entitlements.”

“Grants,” in rust, is the biggest slice, at $237,027,203,718. Who knows what they’ve thrown in that bucket.

The light blue slice, at $63,771,782, is “Loans.”  None of which have come my way.

The little pea green sliver is “Insurance,” at $2,062,647,048.

And rounding out the pie is orange, “Direct Payments,” at $41,687,210,164

Not getting its own slice but showing up in the legend is $37,345,915,842, which is simply termed “Other Assistance.” Don’t ask what other assistance; it’s just $37.3 trillion. Don’t worry.

    What’s missing?  Hint: Without it, all this is FREEEE!

    That’s right, Pres. Transparency has shown us where government’s money goes without including those four black magic [Can I say black magic?] letters D-E-B-T.  If Americans really want to see where their money goes, this cute little pie chart is as meaningless as any other Obama-promise.  All obfuscation, no substance.

    What we have instead is a list that appeals only to the takers and ignores the givers, the payers. should be renamed or It’s a list that depicts America as Obama wants America to see itself – wholly dependent on the government without giving anythought to the terrible cost of that dependence.  Just stick the needle in your arm and shut up.

    Welcome to the Obama years.



    June 30th 2009

    Leaving Iraq


    iser minds always said that  publishing a timetable for leaving Iraq would lead to an upsurge in violence.  But what do wiser minds know? We’re just a bunch of warmongers, right? Wrong.

    Today, four U.S. soldiers were killed in combat related to the withdrawal, apparently in some sort of firefight, although news is still sketchy at this time; we only know they died of “combat-related injuries.”  Their deaths are part of a rising tide of violence leading up to the much planned-for and publicized turning over of control of several Iraqi cities to Iraqi control: 250 people killed in all during June.

    The American media has been mum on the surging levels of violence that have accompanied the withdrawal timeline, even though it’s following exactly the course those critical of Obama’s position on Iraq predicted.  Where are the charges of “Blood on Obama’s Hands!”  Where are the follow-up heart-wrenching personal interest stories on the families torn apart by the violence?  Nowhere. Such stories would require fair and factual reporting.

    In AP’s report, linked above, there was one quote I loved reading.  It was a bit buried, so let me raise it up a bit:

    President Jalal Talabani said the day could not have happened without the help of the United States, which invaded Iraq in 2003 and ousted Saddam — who was later convicted by an Iraqi court and executed in December 2006.

    “While we celebrate this day, we express our thanks and gratitude to our friends in the coalition forces who faced risks and responsibilities and sustained casualties and damage while helping Iraq to get rid from the ugliest dictatorship and during the joint effort to impose security and stability,” Talabani said.

    Quotes like that are, I hope, played loud and long throughout the repressed nations of the Muslim world, so they strike fear into the hearts of the likes of Ahmadinejad and al-Assad.


    No Comments yet »

    June 30th 2009

    Crossed Wires On Honduras

    It is so important for America to send a single message in its foreign policy efforts, with the president and the State Department closely aligned, speaking with one voice, to show the unfied, powerful consistency of the world’s sole superpower. So …

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday the coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and would set a “terrible precedent” of transition by military force unless it was reversed.

    “We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there,” Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

    And …

    President Obama said yesterday that the military ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and could set a “terrible precedent,” but Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the United States government was holding off on formally branding it a coup, which would trigger a cutoff of millions of dollars in aid to the impoverished Central American country. (WaPo)

    Well, I’m glad we’ve clarified our position.  What was that position again?  And how does all this “terrible precedent” tough talk align with Obama’s fear of saying anything forceful in Iran?


    1 Comment »

    Next »

    With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.

    For all 'Media Bias 2008' – Click Here

    napoleon hill law of success free ebook