IS RACISM REALLY ABOUT RACE ANYMORE ?

Do liberals have any arguments for their idiotic ideas besides calling their opponents “racist”?
 

The two big public policies under attack by the left this week are “stop-and-frisk” policing and voter ID laws. Democrats denounce both policies as racist. I’m beginning to suspect they’re getting lazy in their arguments.

Stop-and-frisk was a crucial part of the package of law enforcement measures implemented by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani that saved the city. Under David Dinkins, who preceded Giuliani, murders averaged about 2,000 a year. There were 714 murders in New York the year Giuliani left office. Continuing Giuliani’s policing techniques, Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s New York had only 419 murders last year.

Just during his first year in office, Giuliani’s policies cut the murder rate an astonishing 20 percent. Thirty-five percent of the crime drop nationwide from 1993 to 1995 was attributable solely to the reduction of crime in New York City during Giuliani’s first year in office. (The New York Times hailed this remarkable achievement with an article headlined, “New York City Crime Falls but Just Why Is a Mystery.”)

It was mostly black lives that were saved by Giuliani’s crime policies. By the end of his administration, the Rev. Calvin Butts, liberal pastor of Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church, was describing Giuliani as King Josiah of the Bible, who “brought order, peace, the law back to the land.” The black minister told The New York Times, “I really think that without Giuliani, we would have been overrun.”

About the same time as the Rev. Butts was comparing Giuliani to King Josiah, Richard Goldstein of The Village Voice claimed he felt less safe in New York under Giuliani. It was the ravings of a madman, like saying winter is warmer than summer. But now, Goldstein’s ideas are being delivered from the federal bench by Judge Shira Scheindlin, who recently held New York City’s stop-and-frisk policies unconstitutional.

Yes, Democrat Bob Filner can pat down his female employees, but cops can’t pat down suspected criminals.

Liberals wail about guns, but how do they imagine police get guns off the street without going to high-crime neighborhoods and stopping young men acting suspiciously? Giuliani’s policing policies, including stop-and-frisk, reduced gun homicides in New York by 75 percent within five years.
It is precisely the fear of being caught with a gun that induces young hoodlums not to carry them. The word gets out: Don’t carry a gun! It’s not worth the risk.

Of course cops don’t find many guns anymore! That’s because they’re doing stop-and-frisk.
By liberals’ logic, the government should stop doing meat inspections because it turns up so few cases of contamination these days, anyway. We can also drop the metal detectors at airports. How many people does the TSA actually catch trying to sneak guns onto airplanes?

Have liberals polled the elderly black residents of high-crime neighborhoods on stop-and-frisk? As soon as the word gets out that it’s now safe to carry weapons, spray paint, drugs and stolen goods again, hoodlums will rule the streets and the elderly will, once more, be confined to their homes. As Martin Luther King said, crime is “the nightmare of the slum family.”

But liberals don’t care about the innocent black victims of crime. They don’t care about citizens being prisoners in their own homes — as long as it’s not in their neighborhoods. The important thing is, liberals get to self-righteously preen about racism.

When a policy that has saved thousands of black lives is attacked as “racist,” the word has no meaning. At this rate, liberals will be claiming that peanut butter sandwiches are racist — except that wouldn’t be as crazy.

Voter ID laws don’t actually save black lives the way stop-and-frisk policies do, but it’s not clear how such laws hurt them. I suppose the argument is that by allowing Democrats to steal elections, they can pass all those laws that improve black lives immeasurably, like promoting trial lawyers, gay marriage, abortion and amnesty for illegals. You know, the Democratic policies that really enhance black lives.

The claim that modern voter ID laws are a racist Republican plot to prevent minorities from voting is complicated by the fact that, in 2011, such a law was enacted by the overwhelmingly Democratic Rhode Island legislature and, in fact, was pushed through by black Democrats.

Despite the pleas of national Democrats who realized their cover was being blown, the state senate’s only black member, Democrat Harold Metts, sponsored a voted ID bill. He said he’d heard complaints about voter fraud for years, telling the story of one poll worker who encountered a voter who couldn’t spell his own last name.

A black legislator in the House, Anastasia Williams, complained that when she showed up to vote in 2006, she was told she had already voted. Another time, she saw a Hispanic man vote, go to the parking lot and change his clothes, then go back in and vote again.

If white liberals are so concerned about black votes counting, why don’t they ever vote for black representatives in their own congressional districts? Black Republicans are always elected from majority white districts: Gary Franks, J.C. Watts, Tim Scott and Allen West.

But black Democrats apparently can get elected to Congress only from specially designated minority districts. How come white liberals won’t vote for a black representative? Can’t a black person represent Nita Lowey’s district?

Democrats do nothing for black Americans except mine them for votes, which they do by telling tall tales about racist Republicans.

by Ann Coulter...........

A NIGHT OF BASEBALL.....WHOOPIE

                        I'm the luckiest man in baseball, which is why they gave me this number

                       Coors Field in Denver. The Rockies won 14-2. Wonders never cease.

                                 In Denver even the view from the ball park is interesting.

T

                                                     Even the sun plays games.

Being seated in the right field,upper deck, I tried giving the 20x lens on my Canon Powershot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                           Good shot from the bleachers.

                Camera working good. Look close and you can see the ball coming..

        Every park has a scoreboard. By this time (5th inning) it was raining a bit.

                                        Time to go home. Getting wet.

CLIMATE CHANGE ?

Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
Danish explorers in Greenland in 1932. Credit: National Survey and Cadastre of Denmark

We're not worried about rising sea levels. Well, we are in a seaplane.

The photos in question were taken by the seventh Thule Expedition to Greenland led by Dr Knud Rasmussen in 1932. The explorers were equipped with a seaplane, which they used to take aerial snaps of glaciers along the Arctic island's coasts.

After the expedition returned the photographs were used to make maps and charts of the area, then placed in archives in Denmark where they lay forgotten for decades. Then, in recent years, international researchers trying to find information on the history of the Greenland glaciers stumbled across them.

Taken together the pictures show clearly that glaciers in the region were melting even faster in the 1930s than they are today, according to Professor Jason Box, who works at the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State uni.

There's much scientific interest in the Greenland ice sheet, as unlike most of the Arctic ice cap it sits on land: thus if it were to melt, serious sea level rises could occur (though the latest research says that this doesn't appear to be on the cards).

It's difficult to know exactly what's happening to the Greenland ice in total and very different estimates have been produced in recent times. However Professor Box says that many glaciers along the coasts have started retreating in the past decade.

It now appears that the glaciers were retreating even faster eighty years ago: but nobody worried about it, and the ice subsequently came back again. Box theorises that this is likely to be because of sulphur pollution released into the atmosphere by humans, especially by burning coal and fuel oils. This is known to have a cooling effect.

Unfortunately atmospheric sulphur emissions also cause other things such as acid rain, and as a result rich Western nations cracked down on sulphates in the 1960s. Prof Box believes that this led to warming from the 1970s onward, which has now led to the glaciers retreating since around 2000.

Other scientists have said recently that late-20th-century temperature rises in the Arctic may result largely from clean-air legislation intended to deal with acid rain: some have even gone so far as to suggest that rapid coal- and diesel-fuelled industrialisation in China is serving to prevent further warming right now.

Still other scientists, differing with Prof Box, offer another picture altogether of Arctic temperatures, in which there were peaks both in the 1930s and 1950s and cooling until the 1990s: and in which the warming trend which resulted in the melting seen by Rasmussen's expedition actually started as early as 1840, before the industrial revolution and human-driven carbon emission had even got rolling. In that scenario, variations in the Sun seem to have much more weight than is generally accepted by today's climatologists.

MY LAST COMMENT ON THE PENN STATE FIASCO

Since the beginning of the Penn State revelations I have debated the edict of the NCAA upon the football program. It’ not the financial aspect, but rather that the penalties levied on past contests and on future contests as it relates to to the individual player, I think, is not relevant to the crimes committed by the six individuals involved. In short I believe that a great deal of overkill has taken place. Most of the response to my objection has been emotional in nature. In virtually every feedback to my argument people have responded as to how insensitive my point of view is towards the victims and the damage done to the young minds and their emotional future.

My answer, of course, is that the debate on the victims is a foregone conclusion and no further discussion is needed to illustrate the outcome of those heinous acts perpetrated on them and the effect on their future. Anything further is redundant and not the significance  of my deliberation. The  subject here is punishment for crimes committed.

In comments submitted to Facebook, ESPN, the Boston Herald, and my local news outlets, the first outrage is how lacking I am in feeling for the victims. Many scenarios are given about collateral damage in these instances. Mostly they point to the fact that players can move on, play elsewhere, or just play on with the circumstances. But the punishment for evil doing is the castigation put upon players past and present that some how they are guilty by association as is the football program at Penn State which is so evident with intrusion of the NCAA into  punishment that belongs in the judicial system for conviction of child molestation.


The monetary fines imposed, the university having agreed to it, I can understand. The program ,no. And here is my position. When I started this opposition early on locally, the scenario given relating to collateral damage to crimes committed by individuals was that of Rod Blagojovich and his children. The writer relayed the misery due to the absence of their father and the how they suffer due to no fault of their own. That's collatteral damage. In trying to digest this, my first thought was, what utter nonsense as it pertains to Penn State. The state of Illinois did not put restrictions on Blago’s children . They were not denied recognition for accomplishments of past years. They were not forbidden to participate in future events and denied the award for any accomplishment. They were not denied access to the local parks. There was no indication of guilt being placed upon them through being associated with their father . I rejected the whole thing outright. Collateral damage is one thing but indicating guilt by association is quite another.

The next objection I ran into was in reference to a reply I got in the Boston Globe. I made the suggestion in my rebuttals, what if Mr. Sandusky had been an associate professor in the physics department and the same ten year scenario had gone on. The question I asked , would the Academy of Arts and Sciences have decimated the physics department ? Would they have taken away scholarships ? Would they have erased the previous ten years of awards and recognitions of students ? Would they have abolished the future participation of students in science fairs and off campus seminars ? The reply I got was astonishing in it’s hypocrisy. The commenter said yes, they probably would have. And there we have the hypocrisy of an independent body issuing punishment on the university. Those who dislike football programs and football in general think that because the guilty party was associated with football and Paterno was involved that the cover up was about protecting the program and Paterno.

The hypocrisy here is that the commenter believes that the physics department would have suffered the same fate. Many, more than likely, believe it also. One problem remains however, and that is the fact that there were three high level officers of the university that I’m sure, when it came to nitty gritty, would not give a damn about Paterno or the football program. There only thought would most likely have been about their jobs and legacy in the history of the school. Following that line of reasoning, then why only the punishment of the football program. The top three were not fully associated with the program but had more responsibility to the school as a whole. And yet, other than the the fines and monetary penalties levied by an outside athletic organization, there is absolutely no cry to penalize the school as a whole. Where is the state board of education. Why not the whole university  put on academic probation ? Why not the whole university guilty by association. So now the hypocrisy of punishment for child molesters.

I hardly believe the physics thing would have happened for the simple reason that the physics department does not bring in the enormous amount of money that the football program brings in. The sole purpose for extending punishment to the football program is "that's where the money is". The NCAA is somehow empowered to punish public felonies by simple association.

Let's understand something. In the public sector the punishment for the same heinous crimes that were committed at Penn State would be the incarceration of the 6 or 7 people involved in those crimes. One, so far, seems destined to that end. But people who see little educational benefit in the major schools athletic programs think that punishment of the evil doers should, in some cases, include all the schools if they had their way. My question still remains, at what point in retribution does justice cease to be relevant.

If we delve into the justice system at large we see convicted child molesters given probation (Virginia) or short two year sentences(New York, convicted of 48 counts). My point here is that people approach the punishment of these hideous crimes of child molestation with too much maudlin emotion. At Penn State we want the death penalty for a program, but in Virginia probation is warranted. Not cover up mind you, but the actual crime.

In an interview the other night, a one Dr. Keith Ablow, a phychiatrist, was asked if he thought the NCAA had meted out the right punishment. Of course he thought that possibly not enough was done. The conversation then turned to the afore mentioned New York case. The mentioning of Jessica's law was brought up and immediately Dr. Ablow displayed his displeasure with the Jessica's law and it's mandate of a 25 year mandatory sentencing guideline. And there we have it. Liberal thinking jumps on the fact that punishment by association endows empathy for the plight of abused children, but then it can, somehow, come to the conclusion that mandatory sentencing is bad because, as Dr. Ablow said, there are " extenuating circumstances" in every case.

I'm just wondering, just between the two of us, what side of hypocrisy should we be on.

IS THE CONTRACEPTIVE CONTROVERSY A FLUKE ?

IN READING THROUGH SOME ARTICLES AND BLOGS THE OTHER DAY, I CAME ACROSS AN ARTICLE ON THE APPEARANCE OF MS. FLUKE IN FRONT OF THE HEARING HELD BY CONGRESSWOMAN NANCY PELOSI. THE ACCOMPANYING PHOTO SHOWED CONGRESSWOMAN PELOSI SEATED IN AN OVER SIZED EXECUTIVE CHAIR PERCHED ON HIGH LIKE THE QUEEN BEE IN THE NEST. MS.FLUKE, OF COURSE, SEATED AS THE SUBJECT.

WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE PROS AND CONS OF SEMEN BLOCKAGE, I USUALLY FIND THE MOST INTERESTING PARTS OF THE DISCUSSION IN THE COMMENTS SECTION OF THESE WRITINGS, AND FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT OR NOT , I FOUND THE FOLLOWING ,WHICH I GIVE YOU HERE............

Hey, for all of you old geezers out there, let's not look a gift horse in its mouth. We gotta get on this sexual benefits band wagon. I think we all know that Medicare Part D insurers do not cover ED Drugs like Viagra and Levitra; in fact these vital drugs are not even covered by most private Health Insurance Policies. This is an atrocity and is unfair and discrimatory against the elderly and men in general. It's an obvious violation of our basic sexual rights and places an undue financial burden upon those of us on fixed incomes. We must support Ms Fluke in soliciting government funding for our vital medical needs. The Government must show more concern for the health needs of the elderly. Our demands in this area are certainly just as justifiable as the demand for FREE contraceptive services. The Obama Administration is an aggressive supporter of fairness and will most certainly give our cause a fair hearing.

C'mom guys....make our voices heard, we demand fairness. We are being abused by a broken health care system that is certainly discriminatory and unfair. WE demand our...

******************************************************************************

THE MAN HAS TO BE AN INVENTOR...BEARS LOOKING INTO


The real question in all of this is what is Ms. Flukes carbon foot print? What is the environmental impact of all of this latex flying around? Can the feds use Obama Care to force a strategic alliance between Trojan and Ziplock to create an environmentally friendly reusable condom and package?


******************************************************************************

JUST MY OPINION, BUT THE FOLLOWING ONE IS VERY GOOD.


Substitute 'hunter' and 'ammunition' to Ms. Fluke's testimony... and it might sound like this:
“And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear yet from another hunter in Wyoming or from another hunter or who hunts for their food, and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of ammunition.
“And so, I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them – not me – to be heard.
“Without ammunition, hunting, as you know, can cost a hunter over $3,000. For a lot of hunters who, like me, are on public assistance, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the hunters in Wyoming reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.
“One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless he felt when he was standing at the gun counter and learned for the first time that ammunition was not covered and he had to turn and walk away because he couldn’t afford that ammunition. Hunters like him have no choice but to go without ammunition.
“Just last week, a married hunter told me that he had to stop using ammunition because he and his wife just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore. Hunters employed in low-wage jobs without ammunition coverage face the same choice."

******************************************************************************


What are we doing to our women?
Next, 30 year old coeds will be standing on busy street
corners carrying signs, WILL WORK FOR CONTRACEPTIVES.

******************************************************************************

I note most of the commentary coming from the guys with just a few ladies weighing in on the subject. It would appear that Ms. Fluke has been screwing her brains out and is too stupid to get $9 pills at Target. (Moderator feel free to insert another word than "screwing" nothing else seemed to work quite as well) Whatever the woman is paying for her Georgetown education she should ask for her money back, because it isn't working. Somebody should have told the young woman she could be making oodles of money in Nevada at a place called the Bunny Ranch for something she is obviously doing for free.

******************************************************************************

I wonder if BHO would so proud if one of his daughters were engaging in this kind of behavior and told the whole country? As woman, I am mortified that this young woman would trumpet her "sluttiness" far and wide to the whole country and then have the gall to tell the rest of us we should pay for her contraceptive pills. A poster woman for the entitlement mentality and it promotes the idea that women are too stupid to manage their own bodily functions and need the government to take care of us. I am so glad I am not her mother.

FINIS

SWEET MUSIC MAN REVISITED...

Last Sunday, October 16,2011, I picked up my Chicago Tribune and read Clarence Page's column condemning Herman Cain for declaring that black folks have been brainwashed. It seems that Clarence thinks Herman is a racist. Well gee whiz, to hear the present administration these days and most liberals, who isn't a racist. So, accordingly, I wrote a letter to Mr. Page and let him know how one reader felt about his comments. The following is the letter.

Dear Mr. Page,

After reading your column for Sunday, October 16, I was amazed at how little progressive, elite blacks, like yourself, understand the real plight of the black community. Mr.Cain's remarks about brainwashing, in regard to that manipulated community, make all the sense in the world. It was from that community, which Mr. Cain understands all to well, that Mr. Cain, just as you did, escaped the philosophy of progressive passiveness to the human condition of the weakness for "something for nothing."

In criticizing Mr. Cain you have revealed your need, as a black man, to suckle at the teet of the white progressive ruling elite and reduced yourself to using the race card to marginalize a black conservative in the hope of preserving some exalted position among those elites. Mr. Cains remarks are only emphasizing that which everybody knows.

Since 1964 and the the Great Society, the unintended consequence of that program has been to enslave a few generations of the black community, and surely among others, to that philosophy of "something for nothing" in exchange for the vote. And that surely is what the democratic party gets. Poverty has been reduced by a miniscule amount. The outcry of racism when a common sense call for drug testing in return for welfare is shouted down, we know that those demands are nothing more than avoiding the rule of accountability. Even you, in the raising of your own children would demand much more.

There was a song recorded by Kenny Rogers entitled ' Sweet Music Man " and a line in the lyrics went like this:

" You're a hell of a singer but a broken man
And you surround yourself with people who demand
So little of you.

The question arises, why do you demand so little of your own people ?

SO YA WANNA PAY 50%, DO YA.

It seems this reply to a discussion that was taking place on a friends Facebook page was considered abuse of some kind and was rejected (Abuse I guess).. Jeez, Im heartbroken. It just seems harder and harder to discuss current events with defensive people.

It seems the person was willing to.pay 50 per cent in taxes to be as happy as the population in Denmark where the government, I’m supposing, makes everybody happy. So I wrote........

V......The population of Denmark is 5,529,888 (July 2011 est.) It would seem that in a population of 5 million and a 50 per cent tax rate, the progressive idea of one size fits all might work. However, if I project that idea into a population of 308 million, that thrives on a 70 per cent consumer economy , and a large segment of the population that is dependent on government because that government has taken away the ambition and work ethic by way of the very thing you are wishing for, I would think that disaster, if not here now, would not be far behind. Taking money out of the private sector and injecting it into the government sector is tantamount to paying for your own slavery. And government injecting money to stimulate the economy seems not to work. Keynes was wrong then and his economics is wrong now. Simply look to the European models of Greece, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, and the U.K. The soft side of socialism in Western Europe is taking them down for the simple reason that which is given for free has no value. There’s a sort of folk song that was recorded by Kenny Rogers that sums it up. The song is called “Sweet Music Man” and there’s a line that in part goes,

“Your still a hell of a singer but a broken man
And you surround yourself with people who demand
So little of you"............That would be our fate in a progressive society.

OVERCROWDING WALL STREET

Protesting in the streets brings back the fond memories of the 1968 riots in Chicago. As it turns out it was merely the confused academic masses and some peasant followers suffering from the same inane leftist philosophy, gathering to wait for their real estate license test results.

So now, in 2011 we have the low bourgeois and indoctrinated academic unemployed,with their $50 back packs and $90 dollar cell phone bills, and probably a host of paid union help, storming the money citadel ,Wall Street, railing for the redistribution of the belongings of others who attained success through ambition or hard work, to a section of the society that has been relegated to poverty and second class citizenship by a progressive philosophy of welfare that has destroyed the will to work and instilled in them, to an injurious degree, that the value of an education is a worthless endeavor . The real goal is specific to the progressive, wealthy, ruling elite.

Once they succeed in nullifying the values of the middle class, namely ambition and the value of an education, those same wealthy and political elite, along with the academics , will then have the road to utopia well paved . I believe that the cooperation of the wealthy, hand in hand with a progressive, if not a some what socialist level of government, will turn this country into a second class nation that will effect the future of the whole world. The ascension of China and Russia, and those with rising economy's, will assure the secular progressive political structure of this country.

With only 19 percent of the world's population, China consumes 53 percent of the world's cement, 48 percent of the world's iron ore, 47 percent of the world's coal, as well as a majority of almost every major commodity. In 2010 China produced 11 times more steel than the United States. They are the beneficiary of our employment problems.

The multitudes now gathered in Wall Street would have been better served if the government had let the inefficient banks fail. The demonstrators could then direct their ire where it belongs. In front of the White House. How absurd is it to shout down Wall Street and the wealthy when the government is hand in hand with them.

At my age it makes little difference. My time was manageable. It’s our grandchildren that have to deal with the consequences of a government that cannot make the tough calls .

TONY, TONY, TONY

The other day Tony Bennet was on the radio with Howard Stern and put his foot in it when he implied that the jihadists flew the planes into the towers but it was really our (The U.S.) fault. Now, I like Tony but it seems he hangs with the San Francisco crowd too much. Not knowing Tony’s political viewpoint I give him a break here because I think he got in over his head.

Hollywood and it’s celebrity citizens seem to have adopted too much of what is called, in the academic world, a post modernist philosophy. It’s certainly geared to their mentality. Now, to tell the truth I know squat about philosophy, and even less about post modernism, but it was used in an article I read the other day and I looked it up in google. To sum it up, it means just about nothing outside of academia, but since a great many of the ivory tower elite are a progressive bunch I offer the following to explain why progressives think the way they do and how they slowly ingrain the populace with their drivel via the educational system, top to bottom..

Post modernism, particularly as an academic movement, can be understood as a reaction to modernism in the Humanities. Whereas modernism was primarily concerned with principles such as identity, unity, authority, and certainty, post modernism is often associated with difference, plurality, textuality, diversity, and skepticism. While the term "Postmodern" and its derivatives are freely used, with some uses apparently contradicting others, those outside the academic culture have described it as merely a buzzword, but the thought patterns of plurality, diversity, textuality,and skepticism are prevalent in far left political pronouncements and seep their way into the culture. Not good for culture and I mean anybody’s .

And so, since I like Tony so much, I feel sad that he got sprinkled with inane progressive Pixie dust and all can be forgiven, especially since he apologized with a well written PR piece. Here’s hoping he has seen the light and it’s not fluorescent .

SAY WHAT WARREN ??

The news and my day yesterday are beginning to unravel my gray neurons, so I’ve got to ask the question about the addled brained Warren Buffet. The news keeps reporting that the great one paid a lower percentage of taxes than his secretary who supposedly made 60,000 dollars and he thinks that’s a terrible atrocity perpetrated by the IRS and the federal tax code, in that millionaires and billionaires should be paying less than the hired help....................................................... My first problem here is that Warren only pays a secretary, who obviously must possess some degree of competence, only $ 60,000 dollars. Of course, knowing the brilliance of media reporting these days, no one knows whether that’s gross salary or taxable income, which in any case does not equate to 29 per cent paid in taxes, as reported in many sources. In either case she did not pay more than 18 per cent and in the gross salary scenario about 13 per cent . (According to the 2010 tax tables, with some interpolation)................ We assume that whining Warren paid 17 per cent. 15 on capitol gains and the other 2 per cent for salary or whatever. The problem here( yes Ron, “here”) is that the two tax payments are totally misleading. As everyone knows Warren pays capital gains and the secretary pays in straight income, but...................In either case I believe that the secretary paid about the same or less, except, maybe she actually made a hell of a lot more than anybody knows. ...............................................................The real question then is this, how much in actual money did she pay and how much in taxable income does one have to have to be in the 29 per cent bracket ?.............................................If anyone actually believes anything that comes from the expounding of progressive thought,they should have their heads examined along with the whimpering Warren..............The answer to the 29 per cent tax paid is, the secretary made about 370,000 dollars taxable income. You don’t really believe she worked for Warren and didn’t have a little skin in the game, did you ? If you did, I have some season football tickets to the Pittsburgh Pirates games this winter. 100 dollars takes all 42 games.

HOW RIGHT WAS THAT 2007 BLOG

AFTER FOUR YEARS I CAME BACK TO THIS SIGHT AND AMAZED HOW RIGHT MY FEELING WAS BACK THEN. NEGATIVE. THE REASON I CAME BACK IS BECAUSE I'M STILL NEGATIVE BUT WILL TRY MY BEST TO CONVINCE THE PROGRESSIVE WAY IS ABSOLUTELY THE WRONG WAY. LET 2012 BEGIN..............

COMMENTS FOR AUGUST 20, 07

The other day I was reading an old Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the government, president and congress alike. In essence 2/3s of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. I have this gnawing feeling that come January 20, everything everybody wants will be granted them by virtue of their votes, and as of the last Congressional election everything seems to be rolling in that direction. Everything except change that is.

None the less, being the moderate I am, I have a positive attitude, and see change on the horizon. To be sure, a Democrat will emerge the winner and bring forth upon this continent the taxes and programs that will define our economic future for a term not limited to four years. Hmm, let's see now, where did I put my crystal ball?