About Me

Name: Tomás Aquinas
Location: La Junta, CO
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

"No citizen should expect this kind of behavior from a U.S. senator"


"Such behavior cannot go unchallenged. You could call Reid's remark ugly and be right. It certainly was boorish. Asinine? That goes without saying," he wrote. "But to fully capture the magnitude of Reid's remark (and to stop him from doing the same thing to others) it must be called what it was -- a full-on threat perpetrated by a bully who has forgotten that he was elected to office to protect Nevadans, not sound like he's shaking them down."

In excoriating him, Frederick referenced Reid's upcoming 2010 election -- which a recent poll published by the Review-Journal shows is a tough race for the powerful incumbent senator.

"No citizen should expect this kind of behavior from a U.S. senator. It is certainly not becoming of a man who is the majority leader in the U.S. Senate. And it absolutely is not what anyone would expect from a man who now asks Nevadans to send him back to the Senate for a fifth term," he wrote. "So today, we serve notice on Sen. Reid that this creepy tactic will not be tolerated."


What's that all about?

Well ... Senator Harry Reid, the Pelosian clone who 'runs' the United States Senate, apparently doesn't understand the First Amendment.

Now that some of the mainstream media has remembered their responsibilities as The Fourth Estate, and are beginning to question Obama, we're seeing the Chikaga thug mentality coming out.

We've seen little tidbits here and there, like the 'stare down' in the press room early on.

Now we're seeing more signs of just how the Obama regime understands the Constitution and the First Amendment:

Pimping from the pulpit

Mr President, keep your nose out of my church

Pimpin' the O

The Limbaugh Strategy

Here's the best assessment I've seen yet about what we have in our president:

Obama the post turtle

Well one day an old cowboy was out ridin' fence and he saw a turtle balanced on top of a fence post. When he got back to the bunkhouse he told the other fellas that he saw a "post turtle". They all asked, "What the hell is a 'post Turtle'? And he said it was a turtle settin' on top of a post! He then went on to explain that "you know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there and you just wonder what kind of dang fool put him up there to begin with!"

That's Obama.

He likes the trappings of the presidency. He likes the Wagyu steaks and the free beer. He likes tooling around in Air Force One.

He likes campaigning. He hasn't stopped campaigning. He is still campaigning.

When is he going to start leading?

That is, if he knows how to lead ... right now, he appears to be as clueless about that as he does the Constitution he alleges to be defending and protecting.
Tags: Harry Reid  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pimpin' the O


Well, last week we had The Obamessiah putting the arm on the pastors and rabbis to push his agenda.

This week, we have the Obamanians putting the arm on artists to push the O's agenda:

NEA allegedly calls for artists to focus on health care and energy

Yep.

A 39-year-old Los Angeles film producer is accusing the National Endowment for the Arts of initiating a "call to action" to artists to support President Obama's domestic agenda.

The film producer, Patrick Courrielche, said he was one of roughly 75 artists, musicians, writers, poets and others on an Aug. 10 conference call hosted by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement and United We Serve, a nationwide initiative launched by Obama to increase volunteerism.

Courrielche said officials on the hour-long call -- including NEA Director of Communications Yosi Sergant and Michael Skolnik, political director for hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons -- encouraged the artists on the line to create works of art in their respective fields related to health care, energy and the environment.

Think about it.

It's yet another example of the Federal government ... actually, the White House itself - using your tax bux and mine to lobby their agenda, and to do so by directly influencing areas steeped in the First Amendment.

Corrielche's report is disputed, of course:

Thomas Bates, vice president of civic engagement for Rock the Vote, confirmed to FOXNews.com he was on the call, saying he was invited by officials at United We Serve. He doesn't agree with Courrielche that there was a political undercurrent.

"I don't remember it that way," Bates said. "The call I was on was about engaging artists in ongoing service projects, including on Sept. 11."

Bates said his participation in the call revolved around a proposed service event in Chicago that his organization had considered. He did not elaborate.

Told of Bates' denial that artists were encouraged to produce art in certain areas, Courrielche said [Bates] omitted an "essential, specific aspect" of the conference call.

"The word volunteerism was never used," Courrielche said. "Service was the word being used and it was in specific areas, those being health care, energy and the environment."

Courrielche said the now ubiquitous Obama "Hope" poster by artist Shepard Fairey and musician will.i.am's "Yes We Can" song and music video were offered as "shining examples" of the artist group's clear impact on Obama's landslide election.

The "potential propaganda machine," Courrielche said, is concerning on many levels.

"The issue that troubles me the most is that the NEA was set up to promote the arts," he said. "If you have a meeting where you're trying to set up a machine that does your bidding, a propaganda machine, that's not what the National Endowment for Arts is for."


No, it sure isn't. Nor is the White House, and the President, supposed to be telling pastors what to preach.

But he is.

Yep. Welcome to the Socialist Workers' Paradise.

Over on Shepard Fairey's "OBEY!" website, we have this:

OBEY!

and then we have this:

Obama-Lenin
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Cafferty and the Tax Man

According to CNN's Jack Cafferty, heretofore one of Obama's chief apologists, makes this comment:

With a $9 trillion deficit facing this country over the next 10 years, it is almost inevitable that taxes will have to go up at some point. The questions are: When and by how much? The answers are probably soon and a lot.

Should government raise taxes to deal with deficit?

Most of the commenters seem to think that taxes should be raised on "the rich".  How else can we pay for all the gimmees?

Cafferty says:

For his part, President Obama is promising to keep taxes low for most people.

Jack is still sucking down the Kool-Aid. He's a true believer. Then he observes:

The president’s plan to raise taxes on only the wealthiest is estimated to raise about $600 billion over the next 10 years – but that’s only a drop in the bucket when you consider a $9 trillion deficit during that same time.

Well. Guess what, Jack. Somebody's got to pay for all those bailouts, for that "Cash for Clunkers" wealth redistribution fiasco, for Obamacare, for Obama's war in Afghanistan, for Obama's deficit.

Tell ya what, Jack ... let's all squat, and strain mightily, and grunt a lot, and squeeze out a pile a munny for The One to redistribute in his best Marxist fashion.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Payin' for their playin'

Some of our local golfers are starting to come out of the woodwork, after Leece's last commentary on the golf course subsidies.

Their sensibilities are offended. They are somewhat perturbed that We the Taxpayers don't understand that subsidizing their playground is all about 'economic development'.

It has nothing to do at all with political influence and cronyism, you see. They're doing it all for ... us.

Well ... let's look at it a bit.

There's no question that the golf course brings in visitors to The Smile Hi City.

So what?

If the city's Parks and Recs ran the golf course, it would still bring in visitors. We just wouldn't be paying our tax dollars to a private, for-profit business.

In her recent editorial, Leece pointed out the boneheaded stupidity of subsidizing a business that isn't even in the city, as opposed to one that is downtown. The city receives no sales tax revenues from the golf course, because it isn't in the city. Improvements, if any, don't affect the TID, because the golf course isn't in the TID.

It really is a dumb thing to do, all the more so given the fact that no one has a clue about what that business is pulling in or what they are doing with the tax dollars that are paying their way.

Yet every other municipal golf course we have contacted, that uses contracted concessionaires, tells us that those concessionaires pay their own freight - no subsidies - and they also pay a fee or part of their take to the city owning the course.

Why are we paying our 'concessionaire' to run a business, using our tax dollars, our utilities, our real estate and buildings ... and then not only keep everything he makes, but essentially tell us to pound sand when we ask ... what's up with that? That's beyond stupid; it's downright incompetent. Do you run your own business or household like that?

Doesn't it seem odd that an outfit run on tax revenues doesn't have to answer to the people who pay those taxes?

According to our city attorney, once that money gets into the "contractee's" hands, it's theirs to do with as they will, and they don't have to answer for it.

Does anyone remember that they ran a restaurant in the downtown area of The Smile Hi City? Doesn't anyone wonder why that restaurant closed?

Well ... why would they keep open a restaurant on which they had to pay the overhead ... the rent, the utilities, funds for equipment and supplies ... when they had a freebie out at the golf course? Does anyone else remember the comments to that effect?

Does anyone remember how when they had the business downtown, they were real big on "shoppin' local" and supporting the downtown businesses?

So much for 'loyalty'. It seems that some of our business owners expect ... demand ... it of our residents, but will desert at the first opportunity. Maybe that attitude is part of why we're in the economic state that we are. Certainly, using our tax bux to 'keep dem ice cubes in dem mint juleps fo' da massa on da clubhouse veranda' isn't keeping downtown businesses open.

But the real pisser here is that we're subsidizing the wealthiest part of La Juntan society, the part with the most economic and political clout. We're payin' for their playin', bottom line, while our kids get to pay more to use the pool and to participate in the youth leagues, neither of which activity is run by a private, for-profit business. The golfers can spare us that argument; that it is even presented is an indication of just how stupid the people who run that lashup think we are.

Why are we so cheerfully and so glibly handing a privately owned, for-profit business nearly $150,000, and getting the high hard one from not only them, but also the golfers, when we have the unmitigated effrontery as to ask them "why", and expect something more than a crap sandwich -"the golf course brings in people" - as a reply?

When Leece wrote that first article on this last year, the comments were made: "She doesn't know what she's getting into ...".

Were those threats? Is she not to dare to mess with the great and the near great of La Juntan society? Is that really what it's all about? Call me a cynic, but I think that's exactly what it's all about.

It's about time that city council actually looked at this deal, and looked at what other municipalities are doing, and came up with a deal that better serves the community, rather than a privileged few.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Making Robert "Giggles" Gibbs look good

Most Americans may not be aware that The Obamessiah, exhausted by his vacation, is planning to take a vacation from that vacation:

The vacation from the vacation

Bill Jacobson, over on Legal Insurrection, has a couple of salient observations:

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: Making Robert Gibbs Look Good
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Vagueness"

Senate bill would give president emergency control of the Internet

Yep.

Is this going to be another one of those bills we have to ram through Right Now?

Fortunately, it's being kicked around. When it first came out, some months ago, it was blasted as a 'dangerous government intrusion'.

"In the original bill they empowered the president to essentially turn off the Internet in the case of a 'cyber-emergency,' which they didn't define," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which represents the telecommunications industry.

So it went back to one of those committee drawing boards, and came out again:

Clinton said the new version of the bill that surfaced this week is improved from its first draft, but troubling language that was removed was replaced by vague language that could still offer the same powers to the president in case of an emergency.

"The current language is so unclear that we can't be confident that the changes have actually been made," he said.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

It's like Obamacare. Few if any of our CongressClowns have read it, quite probably because they can't - like Henry Waxman - understand it.

"The current language is so unclear ..."

Yep.

Pretty typical of what's coming out of our Democratic Party-controlled Congress these days.

"Trust me. I'm from the government. I'm here to save you."

Yep.

Check this:

The new legislation allows the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and make a plan to respond to the danger, according to an excerpt published online -- a broad license that rights experts worry would give the president "amorphous powers" over private users.

"As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told CNET News.

The Federal government. Our Big Brother and Pal.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More from the NC trip

Here are a couple more NC photo galleries:

Down East churches

Birds
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Not very productive ...

John Salazar says that town hall meetings aren't very productive.

Democrats seem to have a unique definition of 'productive'. To them, it means, "if you agree with me and roll over, ask no questions, have no opinions, and just accept the Emperor's New Clothes".

That's "productive".

That's what John Salazar means, too. He doesn't like those town hall meetings where he can just bully and blather his way through, like Barack Obama.

And here is evidence that rather confirms that view of their definition of "productive":

Moderate Blue Dog Democrats "just want to cause trouble," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who heads the health subcommittee on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

"They're for the most part, I hate to say brain dead, but they're just looking to raise money from insurance companies and promote a right-wing agenda that is not really very useful in this whole process," Stark told reporters on a conference call.


"Brain dead"?

He "hates to say" brain dead, but then goes ahead anyway? And says they are just troublemakers?

And the great unwashed masses in America, We the Taxpayers, who dare to disagree with Stark and Obama and the Democratic Party ... we're all brain dead too, it would seem.

Now that's productive. That'll get those Blue Dogs to heel, alright. All they have to do is agree with Stark. That's "productive".

Makes ya just want to go out and vote for a Democrat, doesn't it?

Stark is from California. That explains a lot.

Key Democrat suggests party moderates acting brain dead over health care
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Once upon a distant war .."

Is one of my favorite books about the Vietnam war. It's William Prochnau's tale about the 'tension' between the war correspondents and the media, and the military and the Federal government, during the war.

It's very good.

There is much in this article:

Pentagon acknowledges effort to rate reporters' coverage of war

that reminds me of some of the passages in the book, particularly when John Kennedy tried to 'manage' the press, as did his military minions of the time.

I find the current article to be quite believable.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Waxman waxes 'eloquently' on health care


Mike Rogers' opening statement on healthcare reform:



and then we have Henry Waxman, committee chairman, who is clueless about what is in the bill and who requires assistance in finding the 'relevant' passage:


Can you make heads or tails out what this buffoon is saying?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Department of Injustice


Well ... if you are a New Black Panther, and you wander around with a club, dressed in an intimidating uniform, hurling racial slurs at white voters during the election in which your pal is running for president of the United States ... you're safe. Obama's Department of Injustice will cover your back.

Now we are having more of the same with Obama's pal Bill Richardson, down in New Mexico.

Richardson was under investigation for those 'pay-for-play' fiscal two steps, involving one of his major campaign funds donors.

Now we find that the year-long investigation was killed by 'top officials in the Department of Justice'.

Obama can set the DoJ and Eric Holder loose on the CIA, but he protects crooked politicians and racist thugs who violate civil rights.

That's our Hope and Change from Barack Obama.

Richardson investigation killed
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More detainee abuse uncovered


Obama vs the CIA

Yesterday, the New York Times reported some gruesome abuses on its front page, above the fold: "Excessive physical force was routinely used, resulting in broken bones, shattered teeth, concussions, and dozens of other serious injuries over a period of less than two years, a federal investigation has found. . . . [D]espite rules allowing force only as a last resort. 'Staff at the facilities routinely used uncontrolled, unsafe applications of force, departing from generally accepted standards,' said the report."

That's some seriously nasty business. Here's more:

They were committed by officials at four juvenile residential detention centers in New York state. The details came from a Justice Department report that recounted how "workers forced one boy, who had glared at a staff member, into a sitting position and secured his arms behind his back with such force that his collarbone was broken."

Yep. While Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Eric Holder, et al, are foaming at the mouth at the opportunity to screw some Bushies over 'torture' of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, juvenile detainees and others 'in the care of the government' are being beaten and abused in far worse manner than any terrorist detainee.

Where is Pelosi's outrage?

Boy howdy, I'd sure like to see some sniffing around those Califas detention centers in Pelosi's district.

But that isn't going to happen.

Nor is Obama's Department of Injustice, led by Eric Holder, going to do anything about the Phillie voter intimidation case. Nope. Holder's boys and girls have already given that one a wash. Obama's thuggish pals in the New Black Panthers can stand in front of polling places in black fatigues, wielding batons, wearing their jackboots, and using racist epithets against white voters ... and that's OK in Obama's America.

Waydago, Barack. That's some real Hope and Change.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Remember Maine!

No ... not "Remember the Maine" from back in the Spanish-American war.

"Remember Maine".

The State of Maine's government-run healthcare boondoggle.

Here is a Chieftain editorial that's worth a read:

"Remember Maine!"

This amplifies our short post on the Medicare COLA.
Tags: Medicare  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Markey says "no" to HR3200

Betsy Markey, rep for the Colorado 4th, now says that she will not support HR3200, the House version of Obamacare:

Markey says "no"

The Fort Collins legislator said she wants to see Medicare reformed before tackling the national health care issue and that costs must be lowered.

The stance puts her at odds with Democratic leadership in Congress, which is pushing to enact President Barack Obama's promise of a new health care system that covers everyone. Markey, who represents a conservative Eastern Plains district, said she also wants to see reforms protecting physicians from being sued for malpractice. She said one of the reasons health care in the U.S. is so costly is because doctors have to order "unneeded" tests to protect themselves if they are sued.


Wow. "No" to Obamacare because it's too expensive as written. Clean up Medicare first. And going for tort reform in almost the same breath.

Betsy, I think we love ya.

If she sticks by her guns on it.

But take a gander at this:

Don't be distracted by the public option debate

Markey did not specifically mention the public option as being the cause of her "no" position on HR3200. At least not according to the article. But where does she stand on the rest of it, as we see in that opinion piece?

As for John Salazar ... he's still mushing around in the hinterlands somewhere.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The inmates really are running the asylum ...


Or in this case, the prison:

Cons cash in on stimulus money

Not only did the feds send the cash to incarcerated cons, but they failed to respond to state officials who sounded the alarm about the inmate windfall - now the subject of a national probe.

The state Department of Correction initially withheld stimulus checks mailed to 23 inmates because prison officials believed the convicts were not entitled to the cash, said DOC spokeswoman Diane Wiffin.

The DOC said it released the funds after the federal government ignored several requests for guidance.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234567Next »