by Harrison Price

It seems as though when the Obama administration gets into PR trouble they pull out the Bush playbook as in “blame Bush.”  We saw it after fanning the flames of the AIG bonuses got out-of-hand (it produced the populist reaction the Democrats sought until it became counter-productive) and we’re seeing it now to distract us from North Korea/Iran/Cap and Trade/Healthcare.  The current distraction is about the wireless wiretapping under Bush (even though Obama might still be getting intel from it).

With Liberals we get into a subject, take “torture” for example.  Republicans say it produced useful intelligence.  Democrats say under “torture” people will say anything so it’s useless.  Yet actionable intelligence was produced in the example of the attempt to blow up the Library Building in L.A. (there is no library there).  So Democrats take a step back and switch gears saying: “Well we didn’t know.”  Then we learn Nancy Pelosi knew.  Democrats change their angle again and suggest the public is being lied to (so now the CIA is run by liars).  When that doesn’t stick Pelosi goes into hibernation.

In an article I found at The Patriot Room The National Review has a different take:

“Had [President Bush's Warrantless Surveillance Program" been in place before the [9/11] attacks, hijackers Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi almost certainly would have been identified and located.”   Another Friday night, another dump by the Obama administration of a report underscoring the vital importance of President Bush’s post-9/11 national security tactics.

The above quote about Midhar and Hazmi and is from Gen. Michael Hayden, the former CIA director who was director of the NSA when that agency ran Bush’s “Terrorist Surveillance Program.”  It is a bombshell mentioned in passing on page 31 of the 38-page report filed by five executive branch inspectors general (from DOJ, DOD, CIA, NSA, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence) pursuant to Congress’s 2008 overhaul of FISA (the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act).

There are a couple of interesting things about this.  The first thing that caught my eye was the “mentioned in passing” part.  Since the report was produced by the Obama administration they wouldn’t want to readily admit what sane people already know: good intelligence saves lives and good intelligence techniques allow for good intelligence.

The report also has more interesting revelations:

When congressional Democrats rolled their eyes, suggested that Gonzales was lying, and groused that a special prosecutor should be appointed, they well knew he wasn’t lying — but they also knew he couldn’t discuss the intellligence activities at the center of the controversy because those activities were (and remain) highly classified.

Between the time the time the collection intelligence activities that came to be known as the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” was first authorized after the 9/11 attacks until the warrantless surveillance aspect of the program was exposed by the New York Times in December 2005, the Bush administration briefed the bipartisan leadership of the congressional intelligence committees 17 times about the activities involved in the program.

How Democrats see Obama.

These facts once again reinforce my belief, backed up by example after example, that Democrats are very willing to play politics with matters of national security to appease their Liberal supporters.  It will be remembered that The New York Times exposed this vital and lifesaving program in 2005 gravely damaging the United States’ ability to learn what our enemies were up to.

For his entire time in office (and still to this day when Obama stumbles) Democrats blame Bush for raping the Constitution, ruining the world, wrecking the economy, and for the rising price of oil.  When the facts are analyzed, however, it is almost always the Democrats who have tofu on their faces but, like Obama’s report it appears buried in the back pages.

It may take years, but eventually we will get to the point in time when Democrats can’t blame Bush for all of the world’s ills (though we may be a few generations away from this moment).

In a way, this report is a swipe at former President Bill Clinton and his virtually complete lack of interest in fighting al Qaeda even though Osama bin Laden declared war no fewer than three times against the United States.

But that is the subject for another time.

1 Comment
 
 
Picture
by Thomas Craig

I hope you are all watching the opening grand-standings... I mean statements for the Judge Sotomayor hearings.  It has been chock full of delicious sound bites from both parties, and an incredible insight into the misguided understanding of liberals as to the purpose of the judicial system.  The fundamentals of the argument over this woman are that liberals believe that justice should NOT in fact be blind, but consider the ethnicity and background of a person when deciding a verdict (not their criminal record, or lack thereof, but their level of poverty as if it is less serious for a poor person to kill someone than if a rich person does).  This leads me to the first quote of the day by Sen. Sessions (R-AL)...

"When there is empathy toward one, is it not prejudice toward another?"  There are many factors that a Judge may consider when rendering a verdict or a punishment, empathy based on race or social/financial standing is not one of them.

"I would trust that all members of this committee here today will reject the efforts of partisans and outside pressure groups that sought to create a caricature of Judge Sotomayor while belittling her record and achievements, her intelligence. ... Let no one demean this extraordinary woman." — Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., committee
It's called "democracy" and it is perfectly acceptable for anyone to question Judge Sotomayor much like it was acceptable for Democrats to question Chief Justice Roberts when he was nominated.  If Judge Sotomayor can not handle the inquiries, perhaps she cannot handle the position. (Personally I think she can handle it because she is too excited to impose her social agenda on the country to let a few pesky inquiries bother her.)

"The Supreme Court is meant to be a legal institution, not a political one. But some individuals and groups don't see it that way. They see the Supreme Court as ground zero for their political and social battles. They want justices to implement their political and social agenda through the judicial process." — Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.
Now more than ever we must work to reform our Party and bring balance to the Government.  If we fail in doing so, America will enter an unprecedented era.

"We cannot simply brush aside her extra-judicial statements. Until now, Judge Sotomayor has been operating under the restraining influence of a higher authority — the Supreme Court. If confirmed, there will be no such restraint that would prevent her from — to paraphrase President Obama — deciding cases based on her heartfelt views." — Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
The Democrats feel that we should all ignore the statements made by Judge Sotomayor (much like we should ignore VP Biden's statements).  I wonder how they would feel if her statements supported the 2nd Amendment or a past speech revealed she was pro-life?  Liberals claim that a Judge always uses his/her personal experiences and feelings when on the bench.  In that case, We the People, deserve to have as much insight into this woman's experiences and feelings to ascertain the direction that our highest court will progress.  Here are a few more quotes from today's hearings...

"There must be a vigorous debate about the kind of judge America needs, because nothing less than our liberty is at stake. Must judges set aside, or may judges consider, their personal feelings in deciding cases? Is judicial impartiality a duty or an option?" — Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

"So I do not believe that Supreme Court justices are merely umpires calling balls and strikes. Rather, I believe that they make the decisions of individuals who bring to the court their own experiences and philosophies. ... So I believe you, too, will bring your experiences and philosophy to this highest court. And I believe that will do only one thing and that is strengthen this high institution of our great country." — Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Add Comment
 
 
Picture
by Dacia Nichol

It would be nice if all the efforts regarding this administration could be separated with cover-bound opposition summaries, but such is not the case. All of the issues are so convoluted with agendas and prior proven failures connected to one another that writers risk tiring or boring the readers with the necessary repetition of resistance talking points. Administration 44 does nothing but propose ideas that have a multitude of examples of failure worldwide while pointing to any opposition suggestion as being part of a policy that failed under Administration 43 and thus branding them the elusive party of "no". This is convenient as yes, failures did begin under 43, but the equation only proves true without any analysis of legislative history and the forces behind the proposals that made it so.

This explanation admittedly is somewhat abstract, so for a visual metaphor, let's think of a lean track runner - efficient, healthy, effective in his purpose to cross the finish line victorious and with ample time to spare before his competition catches up. He has a training routine that he can adjust and alter as necessary and at his full discretion to achieve the maximum results. After so many wins, a competitor makes a complaint - they claim that the runner has some unfair advantages such as more expensive running shoes, a better coach, and better training equipment, all of which he's gained through sponsorships. The competitor advocates to other losing competitors and to the track authority for budget restrictions in the name of fairer competition. The authority agrees in the hope that the lean track runner will spread the techniques of his success by using public equipment that the rest of the runners also have, and the new regulations are enacted.
The lean track runner now works harder since training is now somewhat more tedious (more weight reps because the resistance machine costs too much...things of that sort), but he still manages to stay in top shape and win every race. Unhappy with this result, the competitor makes another complaint: Because of the biological advantages afforded to the lean track runner, his wins cannot be fairly judged as evidence that hard work can lead to success. Therefore, all the other runners who were not so blessed should have their time subsidized with an extra 45 seconds per race. The track authority understands that the lean track runner brings in a large fan base of paying spectators, and by enforcing such proposed rules, they stand to lose considerable profit since there will be no star athlete to draw fans. While wavering over the decision, an anonymous donor makes a large contribution to the school on behalf of the advocating competitors for better track equipment and new uniforms. Free from budget concerns for the season, the school board pressures the track authority to approve the subsidized time, and the track authority obliges.

The lean track runner is now forced to enact streamlined training techniques to make up for his lost time. He eats a steady high protein diet, and gives up most social activities in order to still keep his first place finishes. He is cranky and resentful and no longer feels any sort of team spirit since the team seems to be working against him. Still...he pushes onward out of pride and loyalty to his fans. He now takes some losses, but overall he has majority wins. Again, the competitor makes a complaint: It's not fair that the food the lean runner consumes is of such high quality and fortified with so many vitamins that the other competitors cannot easily access without supplements. To further their point, they make a presentation to the track authority detailing the environmental impact the fortified food is responsible for, and present a multitude of confusing statistics and graphs that attempt to point out negative long term effects of consuming the fortified food. The track authority has had enough, and now having lost so much money by losing their star athlete's status despite the anonymous track donation (the board went out of budget of course because they assumed spectator profits would continue to grow), they turn the competitors down.

In response, the competitors appeal to the school board, broadening their argument further to include the lunches served at the school. They petition the school's parents, and when they are unresponsive, they petition parents at other schools whose children are sworn enemies or disgruntled opponents of the school's athletes. Under pressure from the surrounding school boards and parents, the board and track authority cave, enacting the competitor's proposals regarding nutrition for athletes and students. As the year goes on, the star athlete begins to put on extra weight from the high-calorie food he now must consume. Any competitive advantage has now been lost and as a result, he never wins another race. The school's track events now garner minimal attendance as all the fans have now invested their money into the surrounding schools who still have star athletes to entertain them (the regulations were only put on their school - not others in the district). Eventually, their track program closes.

So in sum, it wasn't that the school lacked the funding or the necessary components (star athlete) to succeed and have a profitable venture. It was all the policies enacted in the name of "fairness" that slowed down the well-oiled machine. And this is how liberalism has killed capitalism - it's not that capitalism doesn't work, it's that it can't function when the parts are crap.

Add Comment
 
 

by Dacia Nichol

First they denied it, then they ridiculed it...now they admit it while dismissing its relevance altogether in favor of a progressive agenda:  Obama is not trying to fix the nation, he’s trying to destroy what’s left of American exceptionalism while using the economic disaster as his excuse and opportunity.

This week’s issue of Time Magazine boasted as its cover feature an article titled, “What Barack Obama Can Learn from FDR.”  Basically, this means that the final conclusive idolatry has been had:  Our great president is trying to emulate the man responsible for ushering in the failing socialist programs that we still fight today for financial breathing room.

The irony behind this article is that it dismisses the very myth that liberals have used as their cushion for years by stating that government spending during an economic crisis does not stimulate recovery, and using FDR’s “New Deal” as proof that it does is an absolute sham.  In the author’s own words:

“It’s old news that FDR’s New Deal did not end the depression.”

Is it though?  This author [yours truly] has been ridiculed, quite recently actually, for having made that suggestion a few articles back.  Perhaps the commenter should take his argument up with Mr. David Kennedy also, the author of the Time article in question, for even he seems to agree on this point.  If only Mr. Kennedy would have stopped there with his FDR worship fest.  Alas, such was not the case and we must continue here...

An objective view of FDR’s policies would have been more welcome - even one spun in a positive light to ignore the fiscal and constitutional issues at stake with them.  That’s expected.  Kennedy however takes his suggestions to a level that is so absurd, they make the profanity-ridden Republican hit pieces in the Rolling Stone magazine seem credible.

Here are the most outrageous claims of Mr. Kennedy:

Add Comment
 
 

by Harrison Price

Sam Webb is the National Chair of the USA Community Party and he loves Obama.  Is this reason enough to dislike the president?

The new conditions of struggle are possible only – and I want to emphasize only – because we elected President Obama and a Congress with pronounced progressive and center currents.

Yes, socialism is our objective and, according to recent public opinion polls, it is increasingly attractive to the American people.

That socialism isn’t on the people’s action agenda, however, doesn’t mean that we should zip our lips. Quite the contrary! We should talk it up and bring our modern, deeply democratic Twenty-First-Century vision of U.S. socialism into coalitions and mass movements. And with the use of the Internet we can reach an exponentially bigger audience than we could in the past.

Propaganda and agitation by themselves won’t bring people to the threshold of socialism. They need their own experience in struggle for their essential (what is essential is variable and expands over time) needs.

The Communist Party has never succeeded anywhere it has tried unless it is accompanied by an army, plenty of guns, and many executioners.  This guy is a complete rube if he thinks his organization will have any success in America.  Just as the Left accused G.W. Bush of using fear to ram though things like the Patriot Act (which has kept America safe and democratically passed from bill into law) so many of those same people are trading on the fear of capitalism to pass their agenda.

Do two wrongs make a right in their mind?

One thing that is most disturbing is this statement:

And reality strongly suggests that our main task is to bring the weight of the working class and other democratic forces to bear on the reform process with the aim of deepening its anti-corporate content and direction.

Comrade, do you have your waiting-in-line shoes yet?

Yes, it is those evil corporations that have allowed Americans mobility, access to wealth, a high standard of living that most people in the world can only dream of, and other terrible things like grocery stores filled with food and drugs stores filled with medicine.

Mr. Webb seems to address this concern when he says:

Another observation that I want to make is that because of McCarthyism, the Cold War, and the long economic expansion following WW II, the Left has been on the edges of politics for more than a half century. During this time, our ability to impact on broader political processes in the country has been narrowly circumscribed – nothing like the 1930s, nothing like the Left in many other countries.

And why would that be, exactly?  Is it because capitalism, hard work, and sound leadership exposed their ideology as nothing more than an irregularity and because the “advanced” Europeans used government spending to mend their peoples after WWII and never quite retreated from this approach because the United States kept them safe from the Soviet Union allowing them to spend on social programs, not on defense.

Perhaps the name “USA Communist Party” carries more weight in people’s minds than it actually does in reality, but I thought this topic sheds light on how the Left is trying to use the recession as their perfect storm to ram through all sorts of strange laws and taxes.  They have a very small window in which to operate, as I believe Mr. Webb has acknowledged, and they seem to see Barack Obama as their meal ticket:

Unless the Left – and I include communists – sheds this mentality, it will miss a unique opportunity to grow and leave a distinct imprint on our country’s direction.

Stephen Gordon writes a little more on this subject in his column on the Examiner.com adding:

Generally, the Communist Party spends a lot of time criticizing Democrats running for and holding public office for not being socialistic enough. This appears to have changed since President Obama was elected.

Add Comment
 
 
Picture
by Dacia Nichol

There are two stories in the news today that actually exemplify the stereotypes of each party that are worth considering:

On the liberal side, there's the kid-ditching dad.  In Nebraska, a man with 9 children abandoned them at a hospital under the state's Safe Haven law after his wife died.  He couldn't handle the burden of taking care of all of them, so he just dumped them like garbage.  You can't have sympathy for this man - he must have figured out his tolerance levels around...oh...4 children or so ago.  There were options for him and he took the wrong one, and to top it all off (the news of the day), his girlfriend is now pregnant with twins.  This exemplifies the liberal view that the state knows what's best for you and with that hubris passed a law that allowed this.  It also exemplifies the liberal idea that responsibility for your actions is a nice idea, but if you can't deal with it, good old government will come in and fix your life for you.

On the conservative side, there's the 15-month old little girl that died after her parents would not allow doctors to treat her pneumonia.  They belonged to a congregation that believed in Faith Healing, thereby shunning doctors from their members.  In sum, these folks let a child slowly die of a perfectly treatable disease, choosing prayer over science.  This exemplifies the conservative views that seem to go against science in favor of religious belief.  There is a large faction of the right that seems stuck in ancient ideas and decries anything that goes against them, including bringing arguments against evolution and some even questioning the existence of dinosaurs.  Naturally, one would extend this to include the global warming argument - of course conservatives are against it...they don't believe in science, right?

This author thinks that it's fair to say that both articles do not represent either party constituency as a whole...or anywhere near a majority for that matter.  Both parties do however, use these types of articles and events to demonize the other side.  When we think that the types of people that these articles describe represent the behavior of our opposition, well, no wonder we don't get along.  We'd like to think that our reasoning goes much deeper than just cherry picking examples to help our cause, and for some of us this is true.  For most of us though, or rather the bulk of voters that loyally choose one side over the other in each election, it really does come down to these nasty stereotypes.

So who has the worst stereotype?  Let's have a look:

Liberals - free love, abortion on demand, no responsibility, the system is at fault, atheist, down with the rich and/or successful, race hypocrisy, communist, socialist, fascist, tax and spend, micro-management, power to the labor unions, pay to play, animals before people, anti-business, anti-competition, anti-American, hard work is bad, anti-military.

Conservatives - anti-science, Bible thumpers, homophobic, war monger, hate monger, fear monger, fascist, witch hunters, to heck with the poor, secessionists, hicks, racists, unfaithful spouse hypocrisy, non-intellectual, party of "no", stuck in the past, cling to guns and religion, big business first, screw consumers, protect the status quo.

Or does it even matter what the other side really meant to say?  It seems that no matter how the phrase is worded, something negative can be derived from it.  Rush Limbaugh’s “I want Obama to fail,” is one beaming example along with any other remark made by a right winger that may allude to race.  Any time there’s an objection to religious symbolism in the public forum, the “left-wing atheists” are blamed along with the claim that their influence has been what has brought about entire downfall of societal values.

Who’s right?  Well, statistics can prove anything, and fact checkers are just as politically motivated as anyone else.  We can find hope by acknowledging that the other side is not as horrible as we think they are - at least one would suppose.  Unfortunately, there are agendas to be seen to and as long as billionaires are funding them - God help us all.

Despite the enraging battles, these are what will always remain as the guiding principles of this nation: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness (“LLP”).  We’ve got the know-how (the Constitution), and we’ve got the means (We the People).  Time to stop the BS with these stereotypes and get down to the root of the problem:  the evil that would have this nation become something it was never intended to be.
Add Comment
 
 

by Thomas Craig

Our Country has certainly underwent an amazing "change".  President Obama has accelerated the decline of Capitalism and the degradation of our culture by confusing the notions of equality that the Founding Fathers often spoke of.  Americans, as well as all people, are equal in the sense that we all share the same rights.  We all are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  We are NOT all equal in intelligence, work ethic, and we certainly should not be equal when it comes to the rewards of our hard work.

In what has become a sad and ridiculous culture of socialist values, one school has surely embraced the spirit of mediocrity.  Central York High School in Pennsylvania has decided to stop selecting the highest acheiving student of the graduating class to be the valedictorian.  The school has actually not had a valedictorian for a few years now, instead they had an awards ceremony to honor the top two students with the highest grades.  Not even this ceremony will take place now.  The school has decided that having a valedictorian makes the students "too competitive".  The school actually thinks that it is a bad thing that their students are competitive regarding obtaining high grades.  Instead, now even the laziest, marijuana smoking, class skipping, under-acheiving student will not have to have his feelings hurt by witnessing the accolades for a student who worked harder than every other student in their school.  Those students who worked hard for four years are now being told by the school that their efforts don't matter and that they are no better than the students with the lowest grades.

I'm going to assume that the student who should have been the valedictorian is intelligent enough to understand the injustice done to him or her.  I'm also sure that their ambitions which led to their high grades were greater than just becoming the valedictorian.  I'm mainly concerned with the rest of the students.  These students are being taught the liberal philosophy that they don't have to work hard and that people who do work hard and are smarter than they are, should not receive any benefits that they don't receive.  It is the core of socialism.  No matter what you do, you can not acheive any more than your neighbors do.  I have no doubt that the students will go on to have jobs where they demand recognition and rewards for the most menial of tasks.  The notion of competition and striving to be better is completely lost to them. 

After all, they grew up playing sports where you got a trophy no matter if you won or lost, idolized worthless and meaningless celebrities who are famous not for their talents but for having sex on film, and of course, being told that no matter how little you work in school, you will be rewarded the same as those who really deserve it. 

I don't understand why this country has so turned it's back on capitalism.  Capitalism is what made our country the wealthiest and most innovative land the world has ever seen.  As of late, the idea of capitalism has such a negative context to it.  It is truly depressing being alive to witness the decline of American values.  I wonder sometimes what the Romans thought as their civilization began their fall.  Did they worry as their culture was taken from them by false and misleading men?  Did they realize that their Empire would not last if they allowed their government to change all that was right and all that their nation was built upon?  Do we?

8 Comments
 
 
Picture
by Anthony Maffeo


1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand for 7 month term, viable fetuses.

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Iran or Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding and ONLY Federally funded art is worthwhile.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by historically cyclical changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is beautiful.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teachers who can't teach 4th-graders how to read are somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but PETA activists do....even if they are blowing up people with bombs to make their point!!!

10. You have to believe that being "given" self-esteem is more important than actually making the effort to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make "The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution. If you don't know what we're talking about here......it's time you looked it up.

13. You have to believe that Federal "taxing of the rich" is too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge. You believe that Hollywood, California has those people.

17. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens and transvestites, often unclothed, should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

18. You have to believe that Barbara Streisand and The Dixie Chicks know more about National Security than Condeleeza Rice.

19. You have to believe that The New York Times and CNN are Patriotic and individuals that proudly display the American Flag are NUTS!!

20. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.

GOD BLESS AMERICA............oops, can't say that if you're Liberal.
Add Comment
 
 

by Sean Overpeck

I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my horse.

I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

I voted Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

I voted Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they're doing because they now think we're good people.

I voted Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.

I voted Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as IT sees fit.

I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite The Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own."

1 Comment
 
 
Picture
by Elliot Rubin

The biggest legal gambling city in the world is New York City.

    Wall Street does literally billions of dollars a day in stock trades. What that really means is that people and institutions (with your money) are gambling that a certain stock will either go up or down depending on their objectives. But there is no sure thing. It is a gamble.

    The casinos are the stock trading companies that handle the monies coming in and going out. They take their “house” share on every trade. They make millions, even billions in profits.

    A CEO of one of the Wall Street casinos (a trader/gambler) that made a lot of money there but did not create one industry, factory, or job outside of Wall Street is now the Governor of New Jersey. When he ran for governor last time his public relations people held him out to be a Wall Street financial guru and he would solve the states financial problems. He failed miserably. He increased spending and taxes.

     Gamblers gamble, they don’t open factories, adjust tax structures that favor industry and job growth. They don’t have it in them. They are self-centered and look to make money for their casino/stock trading companies.

     Now Vegas Jon wants to run again for Governor of New Jersey. Hasn’t he done enough already by doing nothing right to reduce the tax burdens on the people of New Jersey. He wants four more years of increasing taxes, spending and having the middle class move out of state by the tens of thousands.

    Enough already.

    And remove the Democrats in Trenton also. They are also to blame for not standing up to him.
1 Comment
 

    RSS Feed

    Picture

    Recent Posts

    Categories

    All
    America
    Auto
    Bobby Jindal
    Climate Change
    Congress
    Credit Crisis
    Economy
    Education
    Energy
    Federalism
    Geithner
    Generational Warfare
    Gop
    Healthcare
    Homeland Security
    Iran
    Israel
    Jefferson
    Kennedy
    Liberalism
    Libertarian
    Lincoln
    Michael Steele
    Mideast
    Military
    New York
    North Korea
    Notable Quotables
    President Obama
    Racial Issues
    Rnc
    Samesex Marriage
    Senate
    Social Security
    Socialism
    Stimulus
    Term Limits
    Unions
    United Nations

    Archives

    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009

    About Us

    American Tusk is a site devoted to those amongst us who put Country before Party. We are true Republicans.  American Tusk is dedicated to a smarter, stronger and better GOP.  Together we can make our Country better and move forward optimistically into the future!

    Picture