Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Monday, August 10, 2009


Just when you thought California couldn't get any crazier. If you thought small businesses getting IOU's instead of cash was bad, how about those small businesses being told that they have to pay taxes on those IOU's and that they can't use the IOU's to do it?

That's what we call the bait & switch boys and girls. What one hand giveth that's worthless, the other hand taketh away what has value (for now).

COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE explains the insane details and a resultant class action lawsuit filed on behalf of some vendors:
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - Small businesses that received $682 million in IOUs from the state say California expects them to pay taxes on the worthless scraps of paper, but refuses to accept its own IOUs to pay debts or taxes. The vendors' federal class action claims the state is trying to balance its budget on their backs.
Wrap your head around THAT one. Imagine performing a service and your payment is a promise to pay you. Then later on down the line, the person who promised to pay you says you were overpaid and demands some of his money back.

Once again, liberals demonstrate that they have NO IDEA where money comes from.

h/t to HOT AIR


This time it goes down in liberal country. It's fairly easy to tell that Democrat Representative Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts had more opposition than support at her town hall. Before watching, prepare to ask yourself how many times Tsongas strings a bunch of words together to create incoherent responses (hint: it happens more than once).

The liberal who asks the last question in the video is a prime example of someone who doesn't understand where money comes from or why bureaucracies are so detrimental to whatever it is they're created to manage. Her argument in support of Gov't run health care is that people die under the current system. What she doesn't understand is that many more will die under the plan being proposed.

At one point during the video, there's a young lady with a baseball cap who took the microphone. You can tell she didn't want to speak but felt that she had to. She was nervous and emotional but you know what? She read the bill and challenged Tsongas on it. It was obvious Tsongas was caught flat-footed.

Lastly, a question these representatives are consistently having a very tough time answering is when they're asked, "If this plan is so good, why aren't you on it?"

That happens here too (about 4 minutes in).




At an age younger than what White House mouthpiece Linda Douglass appears to be, she should have learned when to stop talking. She apparently didn't. Perhaps she sat down with CNN's Howard Kurtz in an attempt to redeem her pathetic three minute video performance in which she accused bloggers of "cobbling" Obama's words together to make it look like he said things he didn't really say.

Like I said, she should have chalked the three minute video up as a complete loss and moved on. Before you watch this one minute excerpt from Douglass' interview with Kurtz, check out this article from FOX, in which Judge Andrew Napolitano explains why the White House could be stuck between a rock and hard place because of the Privacy Act of 1974:
"If the White House deletes anything, it violates one statute. If the White House collects data on the free speech, it violates another statute."

Napolitano was referring to the Privacy Act of 1974, which was passed after the Nixon administration used federal agencies to illegally investigate individuals for political purposes. Enacted after Richard Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal, the statute generally prohibits any federal agency from maintaining records on individuals exercising their right to free speech.
Wouldn't you like to be present when the light bulb in a liberal's head goes on after you tell him that Obama is breaking a law put in place because of what Nixon did?

(I know but a guy can dream, right?)

The conundrum that Napolitano talks about is perfectly illustrated by Linda Douglass inadvertently admitting that the White House broke the law. She had to admit that the White House is either running a data collection program or that they're not keeping all correspondence it receives. She chose the latter. While doing so in her mind was probably a decision to choose the lesser of two evils, it is also a "no-no".

If I'm a Linda Douglass PR handler, I type up a memo that simply says the following:

Dear Linda,


Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive