Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Congress to protect blind people from…hybrid cars?

We’re supposed to have faith in our elected officials to spend their time in DC wisely?  From FNC:

A bill intended to protect blind people and other pedestrians from the dangers posed by quiet cars will be introduced Wednesday in Congress.

The measure would require the Transportation Department to establish safety standards for hybrids and other vehicles that make little discernible noise, including an audible means for alerting people that cars are nearby.

“The beneficial trend toward more environmentally friendly vehicles has had the unintended effect of placing the blind and other pedestrians in danger,” said Democratic Rep. Edolphus Towns, who’s sponsoring the bill with Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns.  (Friggin’ wonderful…Stearns is MY Congressman! – Ed.)

The Baltimore-based National Federation of the Blind has pushed for the legislation to protect those who rely on their hearing to know when to cross the street.

While the organization is not aware of people being struck by cars they couldn’t hear, NFB President Marc Maurer has said he fears it’s only a matter of time.

No blind person has ever been hit by a hybrid, so let’s spend Congressional time dealing with a non-existent problem.  Brilliant.

Memo to Congress: They’re blind, not deaf!

April 10, 2008 Posted by | bizarre | 6 Comments

Michelle Obama channels Marx and other Democrats

Pardon the redundancy in the headline.  Anywho, from Shelly O:

Should she become first lady, she said she’d focus on family issues.

“If we don’t wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership…for how we want this country to work, then we won’t get universal health care,” she said.

“The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”

This, ladies and germs, is a classic case of the economic ignorance displayed by the left.  It’s this mentality that causes morons like Shrillary to say that “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

See, liberals believe that our economic “pie” is fixed in size.  Those of us who understand how the real world (i.e. capitalism) works realize that the economic “pie” can be expanded.  As wealth expands, so does economic opportunity for everyone…yes, everyone.  Notice I said that opportunity, and not the outcome, expands for everyone?  If you’re a lazy #ss, then while your economic opportunity may grow, your outcome will not, and voting Democrat isn’t going to change that.

Anywho, back to my Econ 101 lesson.  Private enterprise and the free market provide the best opportunity for improving the standard of living in this country…not government!  Government confiscates the fruits of labor from producers and bleeds investment and expansion capital from the market, then turns around and squanders this money by feeding inefficient and incompetent services that it can’t manage properly.

As government continues to screw up those services, it confiscates even more working capital from the producers to further feed its bloated incompetency.  Need proof?  How about the imperial federal government’s unconstitutional incursion into education?  The feds confiscate and spend more and more on education every year (over 58% increase since 2000, inflation-adjusted), yet I challenge you to find anyone who thinks we’ve seen improvement to the tune of 58%!  Yet Shelly O and her ignorant cohorts tell us we’re not spending enough.

Shelly O and her hubby, as well as most Dems out there, have no desire to see the “pie” grown.  They believe that it is government, and not society, that should control the dimensions of the “pie”, and that the “pie” is to be distributed, not earned.  They want to confiscate more of the existing “pie” to redistribute it even less efficiently than they already are.  Only we can stop them!

April 10, 2008 Posted by | big government, economic ignorance, Obama, socialism | 3 Comments

So now Kerry cares about the soldiers?

Better late than never, I guess. When he’s not busy accusing them of being war criminals like Jenjiss Khan, Jean-Francois Heinz-Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Vietnam) is trying his level best to make vets believe that he’s their bestest bud in the whole wide world.

Anywho, Ketchup Boy is running for re-election in Taxachussets, and he’s a virtual lock to win. But on his campaign site, he pummels the current administration for trying to cut vets’ bennies. That’s odd, considering that Bush’s budgets have increased spending on veterans has gone from $54.5 billion to $86.6 billion (accounting for inflation), or a net increase of about 59%. That’s a 59% increase in seven years, which is about five times as long as veterans have been waiting on Senator F-bomb to apologize for the lies he told about them. Ay any rate, only in Dem Fantasyworld does a 59% increase equal a “cut”!

Look at the bright side, though: after over two decades of insignificant Senate service whereby Heinz-Kerry has accomplished jack squat (esp. in the way of veterans’ issues), it looks like he’s trying to pass his first ever piece of legislation.  Kudos, Lurch.

April 10, 2008 Posted by | economic ignorance, Kerry | Leave a Comment

Couric to leave CBS News after election?

She’s been presiding over a ratings dog, but it can’t be totally blamed on her.  After all, CBS Evening News went in the tank after Dan Rather’s naked partisan hit job on Bush in 2004 with forged documents.

Anywho, the Perky One may want to engineer her own “Gunga Dan” partisan hit job before heading out the door.  From the Washington comPost:

Katie Couric and CBS News are talking for the first time about her giving up the anchor chair after the November election if her ratings don’t improve, a course that could result in her leaving the network, sources familiar with the situation say.

These sources say the network’s top executives believe Couric is doing an excellent job on the “CBS Evening News,” but that both sides have grown frustrated with a situation in which she seems mired in third place and unable to use the range of talents that made her a superstar in morning television. They stress that a final decision won’t be made until late summer at the earliest.

If Couric is eased out as anchor, CBS plans to offer her either a syndicated talk show or a full-time role on “60 Minutes.” Otherwise, executives have signaled they would release her from her contract to seek a better deal elsewhere.

The discussions are described as amicable but suffused by a sense that CBS’s five-year, $75 million gamble on the former “Today” co-host is not paying off, at least according to the cold, hard Nielsen ratings numbers on which advertising is sold. The executives involved recognize that a significant improvement in the ratings is unlikely. The sources, both within and outside CBS, described the situation on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive personnel issues involved.

If Couric were to leave, it would mean new turmoil for a news division that was rocked by the 2005 ouster of Dan Rather (didn’t CBS and Gunga Dan tell us he was not ousted? – Ed.) after CBS retracted his story about President Bush’s National Guard service. She succeeded interim anchor Bob Schieffer in September 2006 on a wave of intense publicity but drove away some viewers with a feature-heavy format while also alienating a number of CBS journalists.

Couric admitted last week that the constricted nature of the 22-minute format had left little room for the humor and freewheeling approach that once defined her style. “It’s really hard to show that side of my personality on the evening news, and that’s a frustration for me,” she said.

The internal discussions were first reported last night on the Wall Street Journal’s Web site. In a statement, CBS said: “We are very proud of the ‘CBS Evening News,’ particularly our political coverage, and we have no plans for any changes regarding Katie or the broadcast.” Couric said in a separate statement that she is “working hard and having fun” and “very proud of the show we put on every day.” …

Sucks for you, Perkstress. Besides, you can’t convince me that your failure is due to the fact that you can’t be funny and “freewheeling” in 22 minutes.

April 10, 2008 Posted by | media bias | 9 Comments

UPDATE: Government school tells attacked girl she can’t call her parents

UPDATE:  Thanks to the alert commenter MG for pointing to this story.  Apparently, the whole thing was made up by the girl, and now she faces trouble for concocting the story.  So, heh heh, disregard the rant below!

Here is a bona fide cornucopia of topics, all in one story.  From Texas:

Melanie Bowers, 13, and her parents walked into Athens High School Monday afternoon to talk to campus police. They were hoping to get some answers.

“It never should have happened in the first place. The whole assignment was a silly assignment and they should have contacted us immediately after it happened,” said J.R. Bowers, Melanie’s father.

It was an assignment for history class–to make a protest sign for or against an issue, and Melanie said she chose illegal immigration. Her sign read, “If you love our nation, stop illegal immigration.” Somehow, Melanie said the sign got passed around lunch and angered a group of Latino students.

“I didn’t know any of these people,” she said. One young [student], she claimed, jumped on her back and he put her in a choke hold. “We have brick walls in the middle school and he slammed my face on the bricks.”

Melanie said a group of boys also threatened to rape and kill her. Eventually, the boys let her go and when she went for help, she was ordered back to class, and told she could not call her parents, she said.

“They handled this wrong, you know, they put a child back in danger,” said J.R. Bowers. “It was a very racially motivated crime.”

Observations:

1.  Why in the world did the government school not allow a girl who had just been attacked, not to mention threatened with rape and murder, to call her parents?

2.  I thought criminal aliens were supposed to be “peaceful” and “just looking for a better way of life”?  Or does “better way of life” mean “attacking gringo girls”?  Real tough hombrés, si?

3.  Does this qualify as a so-called “hate crime”, or is the victim (for those of you on the left, the victim here is the girl) a little too Caucasian for this to be a “hate crime”?

4.  These dumb#sses wound up proving her point, didn’t they?

April 10, 2008 Posted by | "hate crimes", illegal immigration, public education | 4 Comments

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers