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 'Republicans' Category

July 9th 2009

Arguing On Thin Ice


alin-bashers are jumping on a post in Greg Sargent’s The Plum Line that supposedly debunks one of Sarah Palin’s primary stated reasons for resigning – the burden the endless, phony, Dem-fired ethics claims are putting on the state’s budget, which is already teetering from lower oil revenues.

Here’s what she said:

Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I’ve been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations – such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters’ questions.

Every one – all 15 of the ethics complaints have been dismissed. We’ve won! But it hasn’t been cheap – the State has wasted THOUSANDS of hours of YOUR time and shelled out some two million of YOUR dollars to respond to “opposition research” – that’s money NOT going to fund teachers or troopers – or safer roads. And this political absurdity, the “politics of personal destruction” … Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight. And what about the people who offer up these silly accusations? It doesn’t cost them a dime so they’re not going to stop draining public resources – spending other peoples’ money in their game.

And here’s the dismissal of the claim by Sargent:

But David Murrow, a spokesperson for the Governor, said in an interview that much of this money was budgeted to the lawyers in advance and would have gone to them anyway, even if state lawyers hadn’t been defending against these ethics complaints.

In response to our questions, the Governor’s office provided us with a detailed breakdown of the millions Palin has claimed has gone to defending against ethics complaints. It does list roughly $1.9 million in expenditures.

But Murrow, the spokesperson, acknowledged to our reporter, Amanda Erickson, that this total was arrived at by adding up attorney hours spent on fending off complaints — based on the fixed salaries of lawyers in the governor’s office and the Department of Law. The money would have gone to the lawyers no matter what they were doing. The complaints are “just distracting them from other duties,” Murrow said.

We can assume, given the harsh spending cuts Palin has imposed since oil revenues dropped, that the state attorneys’ budget was established because there was a certain level of caseload that needed their attention. State attorneys’ case loads are not the sort of thing you can put off until another day. Draft bills and regulations have to be reviewed by a date certain to keep up with schedules that are set in law; only so many days are allotted for appeals to be filed and writs to be responded to.

Sargent doesn’t ask how the state attorneys managed to deal with that while fighting back the wave of frivolous ethics claims, and where the money came from to handle it. Such subtleties are lost on the Left as evidenced by this intro to Sargent’s post in one Leftyblog:

Far be it from me to call Sarah Palin a liar.

I kid. It’s not far or be it or from me at all. I call her a liar on a regular basis. See, Miss Personality Disorder? See how I did that? See how easy it is to tell the truth?

And off the blogger tramps into the quotes I cited above.

Sargent is right on one score: There is one pot of attorney budget money and another set of pots for “teachers or troopers – or safer roads,” so you can’t draw a bright line connecting them, as Palin did in a bit of harmless rhetoric. But in a state like Alaska, which is struggling to fill a $1.25 billion budget shortfall, you can’t blow out one area of the budget without having impacts elsewhere.

The larger question is why weren’t the media asking questions about who was bringing these ethics claims, why they were doing it, and how they justified the costs incurred by taxpayers as a result.

It’s clear Palin saw herself as a target, and a rather costly one at that.  None of this was her doing, as the defeated ethics challenges prove. It is the fault of the hate-mongering Left, and for a small-budget state like Alaska that’s fighting deficits, expensive targets are unquestionably a burden. But, as usual, the Left is skipping along, believing themselves to be utterly blame-free.

hat-tip: memeorandum


1 Comment »

July 8th 2009

Just Can’t Stop That Palin Bashing


here did Time magazine go to find such a nasty picture of Arnold and such a smug one of Sarah?  Probably not too far because their photographers are trained to shoot uncomplimentary shots of Republicans and wonderful shots of Dems.

But I digress.

The new Time is using these two photos over a lead story on its Web homepage titled, After California, which states are in the most peril? Given Palin’s proximity to that headline, you’d guess Alaska would be right up there, right?

No you wouldn’t; you’re smarter than that.  And you’re right. Alaska is mentioned, but it’s fleeting as a summer breeze in Nome.

Two of the worst-off states by that [revenue shortfall] count are Alaska and Nevada. Each of them will need to spend 30% more than what state tax officers think they’ll be collecting. And neither has a state income tax, relying on oil and tourism taxes, respectively, for most of their revenues.

While the Left has been quick to pounce on this, the fact is the state is projecting a $1.25 billion shortfall because of volatility in oil prices – decidedly downward volatility – but has reserves of $6.8 billion, so unlike California, it won’t be sending out any IOUs any time soon.  Plus, she’s doing her part to manage it, recommending cuts of $268.6 million, an additional $17 million in reductions to state departments’ budgets, and has implemented a salary freeze.

And the Time article goes on to say Nevada, Vermont, New York, New Jersey and Washington all have problems at least as bad and in some cases much worse. (Especially those states with Dem govs.)

Yet there she is, pictured with Arnold.  It’s obvious the anti-Palin media bias is alive and well.  (And it’s also obvious that editors will put readership about fairness any day.  Would you be inclined to read a story with David Patterson’s or Jim Douglas’ mug on it?)



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 7th 2009

The Left Uneasily Re-Confronts The Bush Doctrine


ix very long paragraphs into a seven-paragraph column in Slate, Christopher Hitchens finally gets around to the big question, as if it was an intellectual breakthrough of such import it needed a hefty introduction:

Which brings me to a question that I think deserves to be asked: Did the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, and the subsequent holding of competitive elections in which many rival Iraqi Shiite parties took part, have any germinal influence on the astonishing events in Iran?

Oh, you mean like the Bush Doctrine?  Show them a little Democracy and stand back? Hitchens hedges his bets, saying “one swallow does not make the summer,” and subheading the article (possibly by editors, not Hitchens), “Given the connections between Iraq and Iran, it’s not as unlikely as it sounds).

Unlikely? One swallow? Iraq has a Shi’ite majority and Iran is a Shi’ite country.  Iranians know what the condition of Iraqi Shi’ites was before the war, and they know their condition now.  They see elections that are fair and open being held just across the border, and they know of candidates now holding office in Iraq that would never be approved by the Mullahs to even run in Iran.

The Bush Doctrine meme has been remarkably thin in all the coverage, blogging, punditry and tweeting over the Iran elections, but it stands in the middle of the story like an 800-pound gorilla no one wants to write about. Bush’s war in Iraq so obviously led to the deep yearning for freedom in Iran that the leftist readers of Salon are howling in defensive, unsustainable protest:

Trace192 lays out the familiar diatribe:

Hundreds of thousands of American injured.. millions of innocent Iraqi civilians displaced or killed.. billions of taxpayer’s money wasted..

And there’s Hitch, still desperately grasping at straws in an attempt to justify it.

The loss of life in Iraq, while exponentially smaller than leftists predicted prior to the war, remains tragic and the Left refuses to let a single one of those deaths stand for something.

Candoxx has a disbelief of biblical proportions:

Well well well, not since the crucifixion of Jesus Christ has the extrication of one man and his sons from the planet resulted in so much, eh?

On planet Hitchens.

Philadelphia Steve is so sure of his worldview that he doesn’t want to be bothered by being asked to think about any opposing view. He’ll just remain 100% sure of himself about everything, despite history, despite events:

Do the Neocons ever give up their attempts to justify Bush’s bungled, incompetent, wasteful invasoin and occupation of Iraq?


And they never will.

The only question is why Slate, or anyone else, continues to waste space on people who have been 100% wrong on everything.


Sir Real turns logic on its head, seeing a democracy (of sorts) ruled by Shi’ites as a threat to Iraq just like that big bad Sunni Saddam was:

On the one hand, it’s self-evident that people’s experiences (with, say, a brand spankin’ new neighboring government) color their perceptions.

On the other hand, are you effing kidding me?

You could, AT BEST, argue that the Iranian people are willing to demonstrate because they no longer have to fear Saddam on the border. (The Iran-Iraq war killed 188k+ Iranian men and boys- not the kind of thing you want to re-occur by, say, destabilizing your current government). But to imply that Iraq is some sort of democracy showroom, and that the events of June ’09 are the Iranians just itchin’ to buy is deeply self-serving, especially on the part of those who cheerleading led us there in the first place.

Geopolitics as dominoes- Stupid then (RIP McNamara), Stupid now.

And of course there’s always the leftist who can’t put together a thought without profanity, like the commenter blahblahblah, who’s so jaded, so cool to it all, so above it, so blithely unbothered that he/she actually comments as if thinking in poems; obscene poems to be sure, but poems nonetheless:

Every f****** Iranian you know
believed in the lie that was Moussavi’s lie
which he enunciated at a press conference before the g**d*** returns came in
when he declared that he was the winner of the election,
when in fact every lucid fact and number
before and after the election nationwide spoke otherwise.
So why the f*** should I care about your f***** friends,
when you’ve all become just a bunch of wishful thinking lying b******.

Give me change or a revolution based on the f****** truth
and not the hopeful lies with which you peddle so dearly hateful sir.
Good f****** grief.

I’ll leave out the obscenity, since it’s just not needed: Good grief.


No Comments yet »

June 24th 2009

Wishful Thinking At Fox


eah, yeah, we get the whole “Fair and Balanced” thing and all … but check out the party affiliation in the banner below Mark “Appalachian Trail” Sanford.  No such luck – although another Southern politician with a similar fondness for Argentine women, Wilbur Mills, did have a legit “D” after his name.


No Comments yet »

June 22nd 2009

The Bitter Hatred That Keeps On Giving


ush hatred runs deep, burns bright and lasts long; it pumps up the American Left like the taste of blood enrages a pitt bull.  Witness the latest coldhearted hatred, from that sump of leftist hate, Salon:

In May, the U.S. economy lost 345,000 nonfarm jobs, pushing the unemployment rate from 8.9 percent to 9.4 percent. According to official statistics, 14.5 million Americans are now looking for work and, as a recent headline at put it, “The jobs aren’t coming back anytime soon.” In fact, a team of economists at the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank recently reported that “the level of labor market slack could be higher by the end of 2009 than at any other time in the post-World War Two period.”

The news, however, is not altogether grim. While times are especially tough for teenagers (22.7 percent jobless rate) and blacks (14.9 percent jobless rate), one group is doing remarkably well. I’m talking about former members of the Bush administration who are taking up prestigious academic posts, inking lucrative book deals, signing up with speakers bureaus, joining big-time law firms and top public relations agencies and grabbing spots on corporate boards of directors.

What a shock! The free market economy still exists despite all Obama has done in the last six months to destroy it, and the very best of the last eight years have found a market for their skills. America should be ashamed!

The author, appropriately monikered Nick Turse, sums up the Bush years, and the efforts of those around the president for those years, as “high-priced wars, ruinous economic policies and shredding of economic safety nets.” Obama has spent more and committed us to more in six months that Iraq cost us through the Bush years. His economic policies have taken the ruin Bush started to new catastrophic levels. And I have no idea what Turse even means by shredding safety nets. Are people starving in the street? Unable to get health care?

I guess when the president you worship is performing disasterously, the best cover is to go back and attack the Bush administration. It keeps the ol’ heart pumping, maintains the vitality of all those dark insults, and distracts one’s attention from the running fiasco that is Obama’s Washington.


1 Comment »

June 11th 2009

Apologies From Hell: Violent Pedophile Humor Dept.


avid Letterman has apologized for suggesting that Sarah Palin’s daughter “got knocked up” by Alex Rodriguez during the 7th inning stretch at a Yankee game.  For those of you who have been visiting Pyongyang, here is the original, er, joke:

The fact that Willow, 14, attended the game, not Bristol, 18, was highly publicized on New York media and was common knowledge from New York to SoCal – but Letterman would like us to think that the Palin-bashers on his writing team were unaware, explaining:

We were, as we often do, making jokes about people in the news and we made some jokes about Sarah Palin and her daughter … and now they’re upset with me….  These are not jokes made about her 14-year-old daughter. I would never, never make jokes about raping or having sex of any description with a 14-year-old girl…. Am I guilty of poor taste? Yes. Did I suggest that it was okay for her 14-year-old daughter to be having promiscuous sex? No.

He then says he hopes he’s “cleared part of this up,” and graciously extends an invitation to Sarah Palin to be a guest on his show.  Why Sarah? Why not Bristol? Or Willow?

Let’s trust the flamingly liberal Letterman at his word (just pretend we’re fools who have suspended all knowledge of liberal behavior). Then we have to accept that making fun of the young (18) children of political candidates is acceptable.  Sasha and Malia, watch out; you could be next! Not. Ever. Redirecting the joke after the fact to Bristol protects Letterman from being a verbal pedophile, but it does not extend any modicum of good taste or decency to the man.

It’s hard to accept that no one on the Letterman team knew it was Willow at the game. This is almost certainly a weasley lie to cover up dispicable behavior – behavior that got a lot of laughs from his similarly dispicable audience.



May 23rd 2009

Ingratious Obama Diplomats


ou would think our diplomatic corps would be above petty, Obama-esque snittiness when representing our country to overseas populations, but this is the Obama era, folks, the era of ingratiousness, self-absorption and intolerance.  You can see it playing out now at our embassy in London.

An otherwise lovely story there has been dirtied by the blind dismissal of all things not Democrat, not Obama, as you will see in this Times report:

An interior designer from Chelsea who is a leading light in the Thatcherite Conservative Way Forward group has won approval for a statue of the great American conservative Ronald Reagan to be erected outside the US Embassy in London. The project was given the nod on Thursday night by Westminster City Council’s planning sub-committee in a break with its policy of allowing memorials only to people who have been dead for at least ten years. The former US President died in 2004 aged 93.

The 10ft bronze statue of the man hailed by Margaret Thatcher for winning the Cold War without firing a shot will be placed on a 6ft plinth of Portland stone outside the embassy building in Grosvenor Square, Mayfair, near an existing statue of Dwight D Eisenhower, the war hero President, unveiled by Mrs Thatcher in 1989.

The architects behind the project, the same firm responsible for the statues of Nelson Mandela in Parliament Square and the Queen Mother near Buckingham Palace, say that it was enthusiastically backed by the former ambassador, Robert Tuttle, who left office in February. It was also supported by the Ronald Reagan Foundation in California, which chose the sculptor Chas Fagan to create the statue.

Isn’t that great?  The legendary American hot war fighter joined by the legendary cold war fighter, all at the behest of a British citizen who understands the man’s greatness.  But enter the Obamites and it’s suddenly not so pretty anymore:

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the current inhabitants of the embassy — who are still waiting for President Obama to confirm Mr Tuttle’s replacement — appear less keen to have a larger-than-life statue of the darling of the American Right on their doorstep.

“This is not something that we have requested or actively tried to get brought about,” an embassy spokesman said yesterday. “We’re happy to have our presidents honoured but this statue was not a US Government initiative.”

Asked whether the mission would take the statue with it when it leaves Grosvenor Square for its new head-quarters in Nine Elms, south of the Thames, he replied: “It’s not our statue.”

How hard would it have been to say “Thank you” and let it go?  Could you imagine Bush’s ambassador, Tuttle, behaving in such a boorish manner if London planned to put a statue of FDR outside the embassy?  Of course not!  He would have mentioned FDR’s efforts to defend England during World War II and would have diplomatically avoided comments about how he pushed America down the road to big government.

There was plenty juvenile about the Dem-dip’s response, but nothing diplomatic.  I’ll let Bookworm close this out, with a hat-tip:

[I]s it me, or is there something deeply disturbing about the new administration’s bone deep hatred and disrespect for those past administrations that don’t comport with its statist, Leftist view of the world?

Now, I freely admit that I’ve probably said a few unkind things in the past about that idiotic, antisemitic fool, Jimmy Carter, but I’m a private citizen.  I’m not the representative of all of the people of the United States of America, nor of the continuity of American government in England, dating back to John Adams’ first appearance there.  I can afford low standards; the official American administration can’t. 


No Comments yet »

May 20th 2009

Quote Of The Day: Four’s The Charm

“Now we must move forward from this point to begin to address our fiscal crisis with constructive solutions.” – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger


ith his four attempt at budget reform crashed by a massive voter revolt, what’s Gov. Schwarzenegger to do? Something radical? Something heretofore unheard of in Sacramento? A constructive solution?! C’mon, what’s he smokin’?

Maybe, maybe. The defeat of the cynical measures, which played us all for fools while giving the architects of the state’s budgetary nightmares an undeserved reprieve, peaked at 34% approval – that was 1B, which actually carried three NorCal counties.  The others, A, C, D and E were defeated in every county, with two-thirds of the voters voting no.  1F, which cuts the gov’s and legislators’ pay off until a budget is passed, won in every county, with a statewide 74 percent voting for it. Stats here.

Schwarzenegger may yet redeem his failed governorship if he takes yesterday’s vote to heart and stands in the Statehouse door, refusing to let anything that’s not a budget cut through.  That’s the only constructive solution we’ve got.  We’ve acquiesced to every Dem kumbaya wet dream for over a decade, so our only option is to refuse to let the lunatics run the asylum any longer.

Can Schwarzenegger find his spine at long last?  I’d rate the prospects somewhere between unlikely and fahgeddaboutit.  But maybe he, maybe even the spending-crazed Dems, got a wake-up call yesterday.  If they hit the snooze button again, they’ll understand that two-thirds of their voters will be ready to turn them out in the next election. Maybe that will get their attention, and maybe the Governor will be pushing in the right direction.

But I’ve lived here long enough to not get my hopes up.



May 15th 2009

Schwarzenegger Budget Plan Could Hurt Good GOP Govs


n Gov. Schwarzenegger’s budget panic attack yesterday – a rightful panic attack, but a politically timed panic attack nonetheless – was a proposal that could doom the political prospects of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and other GOP governors who rejected the Obama stimulus package because of the federal strings attached to it.

Before getting to that, though, I’d like to report that with considerable glee, I found in Schwarzenegger’s proposal a promise to drill for oil offshore if next week’s “budget fixing” (i.e., taxpayer screwing) initiatives fail to pass.  Sure, the Gov is probably just trying to scare the gee-willikers out of California voters with that “threat,” but to me and millions like me, it was yet another great reason to vote against the initiatives. 

Covered way down in most reports on Schwarzenegger’s announcement was his proposal for Medi-Cal cuts. He picked his target for proposed cuts carefully – 225,000 poor children, to tug on the sympathy chords of everyone.  But to whack off their benefits, Schwarzenegger would have to get a waiver, untying California from all the strings that came with the federal stimulus dough.  In accepting the money, Schwarzenegger and other cash-hungry governors had to agree that they could not increase eligibility requirements; now he wants permission to break those chains.

Do you think the other governors will stand idly by?  Every single one of ‘em who took the fed money will pile on with Schwarzenegger, bawling about how they can’t possibly balance their budget without Obama’s gracious and godly help, snipping this string, cutting that requirement.

Schwarzenegger comes begging with considerable clout -  not only California’s fantastic electoral college prize, but also his Schwarzenegger to Shriver to Kennedy to Obama bond, which assures Obama will listen.

And there’s a special prize for Obama, should he give in and urge Congress to even temporarily unbind the states from their obligations under the stimulus package.  Should that happen, Mark Sanford, Haley Barbour, Bobby Jindal and other GOP governors who rejected portions of the package will become easy political targets of their states’ Dem operatives, who have all been attacking them shrilly about their decisions. Now the Dems will have their ultimate “See, I told you so!” moment, and the good gentlemen’s prospects for re-election or higher office will be substantially diminished.

It’s a sweet opportunity for Obama: Be flexible, be gracious, reattach the strings once the vaunted recovery occurs, and obliterate some pesky foes in the process.  He just might go for it … in fact, I find myself wondering if it all wasn’t his Machiavelian scheme in the first place.


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