I found the missing common sense
1) Fiscal sanity that leads to federal spending freezes and a balanced budget that in turn soon allows a paying down of the debt.
And lots more goodness. Read the whole thing.
Parody
“Mmm, mmm, mmm Barack Hussein Obama”
Parody by Ed Bell
Che and Marx would love this man
He’ll tax the rich, across the land
Mmm, mmm, mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
Add some debt say Yes, I can!
dollars worthless that’s the plan
Mmm, mmm, mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He wants health care for everyone
Except the old, their days are done
Mmm, mmm, mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
We’re learn’in the Chicago way
To get ahead, it’s pay to play
Mmm, mmm, mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He told us all to study hard
Someday we’ll get a union card
Mmm, mmm, mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
House and car he will provide
So sing his praises far and wide
Mmm, mmm, mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
And so you hit a little bump
Olympic dreams gone in the dump
Mmm, mmm, mmm!
Barack Hussein Obama
Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mmm
Barack Hussein Obama
#################
Chuck & Coleman
As avid readers on the opposite spectrum I challenge you to reply poetically.
It is way more fun than Alinsky anyway …
Your topic is “Mmm mmm mmm George W Bush”
Have fun with it!
America 2.0
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – new version of America announced! Sources say it will be leaner and meaner than the current version eliminating some of the extra programs that slowed it down. Release date unknown, but stockholders are frantically moving the new version forward, making drastic changes to the organization in the meantime.
As you know, America 1.0 was one of the most successful product launches in history, defying all analysts’ predictions with innovative liberty and wealth building features. That original version came with rights built in and quite literally re-defined the world we knew at the time making users and stockholders one in the same.
Widely considered one of the most innovative products the world has ever seen, it changed the way we viewed ourselves and those around us. It gave unprecedented powers to the user and possessed the capability to expand its effectiveness at an exponential rate.
Sometime around the start of the 20th century, programmers started tweaking America 1.0, looking for some upgrades and new features, rolling out America 1.1. While the initial changes were thought to be good ideas at the time, we have since learned the code was seriously flawed, forcing the creation of various other add-ons not previously needed in 1.0.
America 1.1 had some fundamental changes including a unique centralized database. This slowed productivity and forced too many procedures through a central location. With this consolidation of features running through a central location, we really saw a loss of user friendly options.
Still, most experts preferred America 1.1 to the Marx based operating systems being launched in Europe at the same time.
As a result of some serious programming errors in 1.1, in 1929 the system was infected with a virus and completely crashed. Most users were effected and caused some serious problems for the programmers. A few years later, America hired a new programmer who they thought could rewrite the software and put the system back on track.
Unfortunately, when the new programmer released America 1.2, he completely over-engineered the design. Programs were overbuilt, overused and code was written into the system which created most of the significant problems we see today.
1.2 was particularly susceptible to viruses causing the need to create features like administrator functions not previously needed in 1.0. While 1.2 can be credited with getting us through the great marketplace battle with Fascism 5.4, it’s widely accepted the functions remaining from 1.0 did most of the work.
1.2 was temporarily well received after the battle with Fascism 5.4 because the users were running lean in the marketplace. Significant credit should be given to the original code written in 1.0. But, soon enough the problems with 1.2 resumed and clearly called for necessary changes to save the organization.
America 1.5 was launched in 1964 by a programmer who was abruptly promoted after the unexpected death of his predecessor. This new version resembled 1.2, but greatly expanded the number of programs and functions the users were expected to purchase and understand. The code created under 1.5 was awkward, slow and moved into a completely different platform than the original 1.0. Over the course of about 15 years, users became disgusted with the organization and entertained scrapping the system in lieu of some other more Marxed based European versions.
But, in 1980 a new programmer was hired focused on simplifying the programming and getting closer to the original performance settings. It worked.
1.8 was launched with many features similar to 1.0. Users loved the new format, and we saw incredible market expansion both in the country and abroad. 1.8 was hailed as saving the nation. But despite all the successes of 1.8, it couldn’t address all of the code and programming issues hardwired into 1.1, 1.2 and 1.5.
Programmers for the next few years tweaked 1.8, adding and subtracting. We saw 1.8 v2 and 1.8 v3. Neither of which was very effective. Shortly after, we even saw some crazy security features added after some creators of Jihad 3.0 hacked the system.
In response to problems created by 1.8 v2 and v3, 1.9 was launched and included a reduction in code, but also added some truly cumbersome programs filled with memory hogs and expansion to the centralized processing feature.
With all the investment into the centralized feature and new programs, 1.9 was a flop.
In 2009, the new programmer opted to scrap the American platform and move to a Marx based operating system. While most of the programming is still in debate, the new code for the system is frightening. It takes away tons of user autonomy and choices. Many of the interfaces are completely eliminated, while at the same time adding features and programs to be completely centralized with the administrator rights only.
In response to the potential problems with the new Marx based system, users/stockholders have decided they do not want a Marx based system and begun the process of purging the departments with focus on R+D.
I am told that the R+D shows the stockholders are determined to stay on the American based operating system and scrap most of the department heads, code and programming responsible for most of the operating problems in previous versions.
While only rumor at this point, America 2.0 will be very close to America 1.0 with special emphasis on de-centralizing features, a market optimization tool and a ton of open architecture so the users will no longer have to deal with administrator rights issues.
I have also been told America 2.0 will cost significantly less than previous versions and literally trillions less than the newly proposed Marx based operating system. With this new combination of user freedoms and cost cutting, I see no reason America 2.0 won’t be a tremendous success.
It’s an uphill battle for the stockholders, but a new found determination to preserve the American based operating system has united the group at an alarming rate. With extra effort and determination from the stockholders, I think we’ll see the return to the American operating system we all know and love.
Stockholders are in the process of purging departments right now, so expect to see a gradual roll out in test markets starting in 2010.
Help Cincinnati’s Childrens Hospital
http://xbox.childrensmiraclenetwork.org/default.aspx
Vote up to 10 times per day and try to get Cincinnati into the top 3 so our sick kids can have the “ultimate game room.”
I just signed up and voted my allowed 10 times today.
CTP Endorses Issue 9
The Cincinnati Tea Party recommends that city residents vote yes on Issue 9.
Text of Issue 9:
Shall the Charter of the City of Cincinnati be amended to prohibit the city, and its various boards and commissions, from spending any monies for right-of-way acquisition or construction of improvements for passenger rail transportation (e.g. a trolley or streetcar) within the city limits without first submitting the question of approval of such expenditure to a vote of the electorate of the city and receiving a majority affirmative vote for the same, by enacting new Article XIV?
If this issue were to pass, the city would be required to hold a referendum of city voters before spending money on passenger rail transportation.
The 2009 elections are right around the corner and this is the first of many issues we plan to weigh in on. Why pick issue 9 first? Two reasons. First, it affects the streetcar initiative in Cincinnati which we’ve used many times as an example of wasteful stimulus spending. Second, we were asked to make an endorsement by our friends at COAST. As we expect this to happen more frequently, we’ve created a formal board to make these endorsements. The board consists of:
Justin Binik-Thomas
Jason Crawford
Dan Lillback
Chris Littleton
Brian Willis
Joni Wilson
Mike Wilson
It is important that when we make an endorsement, that we consider the three core values of the CTP – free markets, fiscal responsibility, and limited government. We must also make the endorsement in a way that exemplifies the standards of conduct that we try to live up to. We must be temperate, logical, and fact-based in our reasoning.
Issue 9 is not a slam dunk and we are not endorsing it without some reservations. I will do my best to highlight our thought process and why we chose to support it in the end.
The genesis of issue 9 can be traced to the plans for a streetcar system throughout Cincinnati. As is typical in these types of projects these days, a local project is dependant on state and federal funds in order for it to be completed. We understand the pressure that local governments must feel to drink from the federal trough, but we have reached a point where this is no longer sustainable. In keeping with our principle of limited, local government, we see no reason why the federal government should be funding projects that are entirely local in nature regardless of the merits of the projects themselves. Therefore, we oppose in principle local projects that obtain federal funding.
That being said, we recognize the role of government in transportation infrastructure. We understand that the federal government through powers derived from the commerce clause in the Constitution, has a legitimate role in facilitating interstate commerce through transportation infrastructure. We also believe that state and local governments – either through the people or their representatives, should have the ability to facilitate local transportation. This includes various forms of passenger rail as mentioned in Issue 9.
So to summarize where we are at right now, we oppose the streetcar project in particular because of the necessity of federal funds, but we recognize the right of the city to implement the streetcar or similar projects should they so desire.
We must then address the question of whether or not the streetcars are good for Cincinnati. In our opinion, this comes down to a cost/benefit analysis.
Mass transit rail infrastructure requires high population density to drive the ridership needed to make it useful. There is a certain level of chicken and the egg here. You can’t have the necessary density without the transportation infrastructure, but you also can’t afford the infrastructure without the density. Our problem is that Cincinnati is a mature city that does not have sufficient population density. Building a streetcar system will allow us to increase density, but that doesn’t happen overnight. Redevelopment to fully leverage a passenger rail system would take many years. In the meantime, we would have a system that will require large amounts of government subsidy to keep running. In this era where every dollar counts, we believe it is not fiscally responsible to implement a streetcar or similar project right now.
Our reservations about Issue 9 arise because the ballot language does not specifically address the streetcar project, and because it is a charter amendment. In general, we believe that duly elected representatives (Mayor Mallory and City Council) should be able to do their job and be voted out at the ballot box if voters decide they don’t like the direction. In this case though, these type of projects are costly and long term commitments that you can make a reasonable case should require special voter approval to get done.
We have concerns that this issue rises to the level of charter amendment. We wish that this issue was specific to the streetcars. Unfortunately, we don’t have our perfect situation, so we have to make a decision to endorse, stay neutral, or oppose. In the end, all this issue does is require that voters get a direct say in how their money is spent. The charter amendment can be repealed as easily as it can be enacted this year. Considering the Cincinnati Tea Party was founded on the premise that our representatives weren’t doing a good job of representing us, we think the good of this issue outweighs the bad.
Quick Time Saver
The real problem here is that when everybody is racist, nobody is racist. All the false cries of racism serve to devalue and distract from legitimate instances of it that need to be addressed.
Rush: You’re Wrong on This One
by Kimberly Fletcher
I was returning home from taking my son to school Monday when I caught Rush Limbaugh’s show as he gave his opinion on why so many people attended the rally in D.C. last Saturday. Rush said we came not because we are fed up with government but because we are fed up with Democrats and the Democrat president. As one of those protesters and one of the coordinators for the Dayton Tea Party in Ohio, I have to tell you, Rush, you couldn’t be more wrong on this one – and no amount of analysis, reports or numbers from prior elections is going to change that.
I know why I am protesting and I am very clearly aware of what this movement is about, and anyone who has attended any one of the tea parties knows it, too. I attended four of them and spoke at three. The air in those rallies – and the over 30 smaller community meetings known as Liberty Groups that formed from them – is the same everywhere. We are sick of government corruption and its invasion in our lives.
I completely agree with Rush that this is a conservative movement, but he is equating Republican with conservative as if they are synonymous – and they are not. Rush insists the two parties are not the same, and while I agree that the platforms of the parties are dramatically different, the people serving in office are not. The Republican Party looks great on paper, but the people who call themselves Republicans (but for a few exceptions) either have no idea what the Party stands for or they just don’t care.
The tea parties are not protesting a party; they are protesting an oppressive, out-of-control government, and both parties are guilty.
It wasn’t the Democrats who pushed No Child Left Behind or the massive expansions to Medicare. It wasn’t the Democrats who pushed through the $700 billion TARP. It wasn’t a Democrat president who threw the Constitution out the window and expanded the powers of government well beyond the Constitution with the Patriot Act and Homeland Security. It wasn’t a Democrat president that tried to legalize millions of illegal aliens and basically called the American people stupid and uncaring for fighting against it. This fight did not begin with President Obama, his taking office just escalated it.
Take a stand for the principles that have made America so great, a magnetic bumper sticker proclaiming: “Life, Liberty and Property”
The reason Barack Obama was elected was because of the two-party system. The people of America didn’t know where else to go. How can you be heard when you are told you only have two choices and they both stink? In 2006, voters came out in mass numbers and voted Democrat down the ticket to “teach Republicans a lesson.” Not only did that strategy not work, it totally backfired. In 2008, the people bought into the “Change” theme because that is what we all wanted – change in Washington. But the change we got was not what we were promised. We have taken the easy way out for too long. There is no accountability in Washington. There is no transparency. And the only way we are going to get it is to vote both parties out – but not by voting a third party in.
Like Rush Limbaugh, I am adamantly opposed to a third-party option. Voting “third party” simply for the sake of change will only exacerbate the problem. We’ve already tried the changing of the guard, and it doesn’t work. The answer is not to vote third party; the answer is to vote NO party! We need to stop voting by letters the way preschoolers color by numbers. It’s time we take all the letters away and stop taking the easy way out. We need to vote people not parties, and issues not politics. That is what these tea parties and protests are about – taking the government back into our own hands where it was always meant to be. But if we allow Rush Limbaugh to convince us we are protesting a party and this whole thing comes down to Republicans versus Democrats, the movement will come to a screeching halt and we will lose all the ground we have gained.
This movement knows no color, no race, no religion, no gender, no party! And we need to keep it that way. We are not protesting a Democrat president; we are protesting the policies of our current president. It doesn’t matter what party he is. It only matters that he is going against the will of the people. We are not protesting the Democratic Party. We are protesting people who are completely disregarding the Constitution and introducing socialism into our republic.
This isn’t about saving the Republican Party; it is about ending government corruption. And we will no longer allow anyone to divide us by race, gender, religion or party. We are not protesting a party; we are fighting for America. We are Americans, coming together to fight for our freedom and our republic. It is as simple as that.
We don’t want any more politicians in Washington or anywhere else in this country. We want statesmen – men and women who understand the fundamental principles and guiding values this nation was founded on, men and women who have the courage to stand up for those principles no matter what the cost. We want leaders with integrity and moral character who are willing to sacrifice their lives, fortunes and sacred honor for the public good – men and women who are committed to fighting for a cause that is greater than themselves. That is what we want. And that is what we are fighting for.
Shame on us for not being here before. Shame on us for being asleep at the wheel and allowing this to happen. But we are here now. We are awake. We are engaged. And we are not going anywhere! Enough is enough. No matter what party you are, we are not going to take it anymore. And that, Rush, is what this movement is about.
Kimberly Fletcher is the founder and president of Homemakers for America. She is a military wife, mother of eight and a seasoned grass-roots activist. The views in this article are solely of the author and not representative of Homemakers for America Inc.
Tea Party at Harvest Home Festival
Since this community group leader can’t post the update of our attendance at the Harvest Home Festival, I thought I’d post a couple excerpts for her. Very funny story to lead things off. Enjoy!
We had a union booth 2 down from us supporting government health care. There were 6 people in the booth the entire week-end who literally did not get out of their chairs – except for one time. They went to complain to the Harvest Home Committee that we were “mingling” too far out in the crowd and handing “something” out. A Union worker came to the booth accompanied by a policeman (guess we looked pretty menacing) – the policeman asked if he could have a copy of our hand out – he could not quite hide his smirk when he saw it was a constitution and handed it to the Union rep.
We would like to thank everyone who helped make Harvest Home a huge success this week-end.
It was amazing the amount of support we had from the people at the festival. These were everyday working people who are frustrated and don’t know what to do about it. We had over 50 people who signed up to join our group!
How can Charlie Gibson not be aware of this?
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/15/great-moments-in-gatekeeping/
Seriously. Acorn is caught on multiple tapes (4 now) offering advice and assistance on how to avoid taxes and execute on child prostitution with illegal aliens.
And Charlie Gibson thinks they might “leave it to the cables.” I guess ABC’s viewers don’t deserve to know why the Census Bureau cut ties to Acorn or why the Senate voted 83-7 to cut housing funding to Acorn (why wasn’t it unanimous?) Maybe they should call Fox.
Update: Kudos to John Boehner for demanding that all funding be cut immediately.
A Common Morality Is Necessary For A Free Society
The successful creation and sustenance of a free society is contingent on the voluntary adoption of a common moral perspective among its citizens, apart from and above the State, which serves to curb the natural inclination of its citizens towards self-gratification and ego aggrandizement. Without this common moral perspective, citizens will exercise their liberty in such a way as to gratify themselves to the detriment of the common good. Eventually, the aggregate impact of these acts will create such harm that the public will conclude that the surrender of freedom is an acceptable price to escape the difficulty created by the unrestrained exercise of liberty.
This is not merely a speculative concern. In the aftermath of many of our past financial crises there have been outcries for more and stricter regulations because of the perception that the greed of certain individuals drove acts which damaged common economic interests. Today, for instance, I saw an article from the Daily Telegraph entitled “Lehman Drives Sword Into Laissez Faire.” Shifting our focus beyond our borders, we have seen many fledgling democracies destroyed when certain business or political interests acted in disregard to the common good, resulting in crises which in turn led to loss of freedoms as the public demanded more control over individual behavior.
The weaker the influence of a common moral perspective, the more tightly the State must hold the reins on its citizens’ behavior.
This principle was understood by our Founding Fathers. For example, George Washington made the following statement in his Farewell Address:
“It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government.”
The Founding Fathers could assume a common moral perspective in the Christian faith. Since that time, however, popular intellectual currents have weakened the influence of that faith, and thus its restraining influence.
Let the reader understand that this is not an argument for the adoption of the Christian faith (although, as a Christian, I am prepared to make that argument). Which moral perspective should be adopted (and it is conceivable that such a perspective not even be a religion in the strictest sense) is a matter separate from the present discussion. Rather, the point to be made is that the creation of a free society requires, as a condition for its success, the adoption of some common morality which is independent of the State.
The reader must further understand that the choice of moral perspective cannot be imposed by any movement or institution, if only for the practical reason that the act of imposition weakens the legitimacy of the moral perspective, and hence weakens its ability to influence behavior. Additionally, most citizens (including the author) would have a moral issue with the act of imposition as well.
Should, instead, the people refer the role of moral arbiter to the State, the State in effect chooses a national religion, albeit a religion without God, and thus the State violates the First Amendment to our Constitution.
Within the context of the American experiment, then, our challenge is to consider, as we regain our freedom, what the common moral perspective must be, independent of the compulsory agency of the State. Although we can debate which perspective we should choose, we cannot, based on the experience of history, doubt the necessity for a free society of choosing a viable moral fabric.