Malignant Liberal Idiocy

H/T to Debbie at Right Truth for pointing this out in her great piece, “We Will Ruin Alaska… (No We Won’t.)”

FOXNews.com has the disturbing news, which should be viewed as a symptom of the disease that is our current Congress:

WASHINGTON — The political vision of a summer gas tax holiday died a quick death in Congress, losing to a view that federal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel will have to go up if they go anywhere.

Despite calls from the presidential campaign trail for a Memorial Day-to-Labor Day tax freeze, lawmakers quickly concluded — with a prod from the construction industry — that having $9 billion less to spend on highways could create a pre-election specter of thousands of lost jobs.

Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on diesel fuel.

Thank God for rare voices of congressional sanity:

Congress should first reduce spending on pet projects, known as earmarks, argued Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. “I’m not going to let the Senate spend all this money when nobody is looking, especially when we refuse to stop wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on earmarks.”

It is really too bad Senator DeMint didn’t run for president, but back to the issue of the congressional vermin and their ridiculous abuse of taxpayers. I was perusing the FY 2008 budget and noticed a tiny bit of bureaucratic waste here and there:

• Department of Education - $58.6 billion
• Department of Housing and Urban Development - $44.4 billion
• Environmental Protection Agency - $7.8 billion
• Department of Homeland Security - $43.2 billion (including the $28 million thrown away on a virtual fence pilot program which didn’t work as anyone with a brain could have predicted.)
• Department of Labor - $52.3 billion
• Department of Treasury - $11.1 billion for the IRS alone

Let’s see, where could one look to find $9 billion for highway construction projects? It is a tough one, just ask the personal power hungry libiots in Congress. No, the answer is not “raise the gasoline tax,” but if you guessed that, you too could be a senator or representative. The Departments of Education, HUD, Labor, and the EPA should not even exist or at least should all be slashed by 50%. Either solution would eliminate $80 to $160 billion in wasted taxpayer dollars and for those of you in Congress, that is more than the $9 billion shortfall.

Problem solved! All that needs to be done now is to get the federal government to get its filthy paws out of the cookie jars of the American citizens and stick to its responsibilities. Easier said than done, I realize, but the waste that is Capitol Hill cannot be exposed often enough! De-centralize dis-functions the federal government should not have. Let individual states deal with education and similar issues. Stop taking our money and distributing it among your cronies and victim classes to buy votes. Implement The Fair Tax or a flat tax and cut the IRS down to a reasonable size.

Our leaders, as pathetic as most of them are, should follow the “KISS” principle and Keep It Simple STUPID!

The Washington Post took a break from campaigning for Barrack Karl (since Hussein is apparently offensive) Obama to report on Wednesday’s disturbing ruling by the grossly misnamed International Court of Justice. The headline, which seems thankfully inaccurate, reads “Court Orders U.S. to Halt Execution of 5 Mexicans.” I guess they figure nobody reads the articles since they point out in the text that :

CULIACAN, Mexico, July 16 — A U.N. court ruled Wednesday that the United States should halt the executions of five Mexican nationals — including a convicted killer sentenced to die in three weeks — until their cases can be reviewed.

The ruling by the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, is not binding. Nonetheless, Mexican officials and attorneys for the condemned men said they hoped it would influence U.S. authorities overseeing the five cases in Texas, as well as the 46 other cases of Mexican nationals on death row across the United States.

It doesn’t sound like an “order” to me, but it is close enough to be infuriating. Even more infuriating is the “most pressing case” they highlight:

The most pressing case involves José Medellín, who was convicted of raping and killing two teenage girls 15 years ago as part of a gang initiation rite. He is scheduled to die Aug. 5 in Texas. His case has stirred a passionate reaction in Mexico, which does not have the death penalty.

Medellin raped and murdered two teenage girls! By the way, here is a reminder that the Bush administration sought to have the death penalty overturned by the Supreme Court last year: “Bush backs Mexico, rapist-murderer.”

If we had a justice system, this beast would not be alive and costing the taxpayers a dime. It was despicable when President Amnesty tried to get this illegal alien rapist and murderer a softer sentence and the continued actions by the World Court only serve to further the suffering of the victims’ families.

The young victims’ rights were given no consideration whatsoever before their deaths. President Bush and the World Court (I cannot use the word “justice” in referring to this judicial compost heap again) have indicated that the two young girls, victimized by Medellin do not matter. What matters to our president is his approval rating in Mexico (and our next president is damn sure to carry on in the same fashion regardless of which amnesty peddling liberal is elected.)

The World Court’s interest is likely motivated by spite and a desire to exert power over our nation. I wonder what the Ertman family thinks of the UN and their “court.” I wonder if they and the family of the other victim will ever be allowed to see some form of justice for their precious little girls.

The man who would bring you Obamunism draped in “hope” for “change” wants the Christian population to trust him with their support for the presidency. Let us ignore the contradiction that would be a Christian supporting Obama and look at the message of the charlatan. His D.C. campaign office (AKA The Washington Post) describes how “Obama Addresses His Faith:”

ST. LOUIS, July 5 — Sen. Barack Obama ended a week’s focus on values by giving a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church a highly personal account of his spiritual journey and a promise that he will make “faith-based” social service “a moral center of my administration.”

He “ended a week’s focus on values” so he must be relieved to have such unfamiliar subject matter behind him. I’m not saying that I don’t believe Barry has values. I am saying that his values are likely not what he was trying to sell last week… or did he give a speech on Marxism somewhere in there? Perhaps he did make a veiled reference to his plans for Obamunism in St. Louis:

He suggested that he would apply the lessons of his faith to the problems he would face if he became president. “The challenges we face today — war and poverty, joblessness and homelessness, violent streets and crumbling schools — are not simply technical problems in search of a 10-point plan,” he said. “They are moral problems, rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness, in the imperfections of man. And so the values we believe in — empathy and justice and responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors — these cannot only be expressed in our churches and our synagogues, but in our policies and in our laws.”

The message I receive is that the working people will be required to pay more in taxes to enable us to exercise “empathy and justice and responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors.” Redistribution of wealth is the only way to prove that we are not a nation of “societal indifference and individual callousness.” His type of libiot ideology is largely to blame for the problems he mentions so how insulting is it to the intelligence of his audience that he expects them to believe that the solution can be found in the cause?

How dare he mention joblessness when his party seeks to stifle manufacturing either in the name of the environment or big labor unions? How dare he mention homelessness when his party seemingly has declared war on the productive? Or am I missing how the homelessness problem might be related to joblessness? “Violent streets and crumbling schools,” is this man insane? The left has worked for years to degrade society. They have glorified immorality and fatherless homes. they have made schools shift the focus from education to diversity and important subjects such as trans-gender-sex-education.

The vile purveyor of Obamunism will not admit that he and his ideology support the degradation of society and the ills he laments. He cannot admit that he needs unwed mothers raising children without fathers. He cannot admit that he needs children to receive poor educations and grow into less than productive citizens. The more people that rely on social programs and entitlements, the more people the Obamunists can control. He cannot admit that he needs dependents of the government so that he can justify the confiscation of the productive sector’s labor.

I get the sense that the most genuine Obama moment of the campaign occurred at a gathering with San Francisco elites when Barry didn’t know he was being recorded. Christian voters, Barry wants your support so please be so kind as to ignore what is likely the most honest quote you’ll get from the dope of hope. From The Hill:

Obama told guests at a private event in San Francisco that he was having trouble attracting support in rural Pennsylvania because people living there had become “bitter” over their economic circumstances and as a result “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

At least he didn’t come out and say “hillbillies” because that would just be tacky! Wait! He chose his words carelessly… and… and they weren’t the words he’s known for twenty years so “bitter” and “cling” have joined Rev. Wright, Wesley Clark, and Bill Ayers in the pile of items from which to distance himself.

Back to the article by his campaign (or Washington Post if you want to be picky.) He has apparently thrown Christians a bone by indicating that there might be an excuse that might not be good enough for slaughtering an unborn child:

Last week, Obama expressly came out against using “mental distress” as a justification for late-term abortions, a position widely seen as the latest in a string of moves toward the political center but one aimed specifically at Christian conservatives.

Oh, well in that case, every Christian should see it Barry as the pro-life candidate! Not so fast though, he still thinks abortion at any stage is acceptable as long as it isn’t a result of “feeling blue”:

“Historically, I have been a strong believer in a woman’s right to choose, with her doctor, her pastor, her family,” he said Saturday. “And I’ve been consistent in saying you have to have a health exception on any significant restrictions or bans on abortions, including late-term abortions.

“It can be defined by physical health. It can be defined by serious clinical mental health diseases,” he continued. But “it’s not just a matter of feeling blue.”

On a personal note, I believe that Obama’s pro-abortion activism would disqualify him from receiving a single Christian vote. What he did in the Illinois Senate to kill common sense legislation to protect babies that were born alive (botched abortions) might disqualify him from having a soul. From Jill Staneck:

On Jan. 10, 2005, newly elected U.S. Sen. Barack Obama visited former colleagues and staffers at the Illinois state Capitol, where he had served seven years as state senator. I happened to be at the Capitol that day, too, and a friend and I took the opportunity to speak to Obama, who had not yet achieved rock-star status and was still approachable.

We were in Springfield to lobby for passage of the state Born Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. Obama spoke against the legislation in 2001 and 2002 and single-handedly defeated it in committee in 2003.

My friend stood in Obama’s path and said, “Senator, we are going to pass Born Alive here in Illinois this year.”

Obama smiled smoothly and agreed, “I think you will,” adding, “I would have voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois had it been worded the same as the federal bill. I think that’s the position the Democrats should take.”

There’s just one thing he forgot to mention: Obama had stopped his committee from adding the federal wording.

With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

Christians who oppose abortion are apparently supposed to be so caught up in “change” that we will accept the notion of not allowing abortions to a mother just because she’s “feeling blue” as a reasonable compromise on the issue. (Of course, in my opinion the life of an innocent child is not something open to compromise, but hey I’m not an enlightened elitist.) Christians’ intelligence and character are being insulted by Obama’s faith based pandering. Not only are we dumb enough to believe what this snake oil salesman is saying, we are greedy! We would not be charitable and giving; therefore, we need Obamunism and its wealth redistribution plan to care for the needy.

I sure am glad that American Christians have the man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years (when not campaigning for something) and never heard the controversial parts of the sermons, to lecture us regarding faith!

Cross-post from Conservative Common Man:

The typical “woe is business” sob story drips with even more typical liberal hypocrisy. Business is the enemy and is always taking advantage of poor unsuspecting, ignorant people… that is except when we can use the plight of business to further our open border agenda! The fact that the NY Times has such a ridiculous whine fest on behalf of business in today’s spewing, is rendered even more idiotic by the fact that the next president is guaranteed to coddle illegal aliens. Their side of the issue has already won the presidency, but apparently that isn’t enough.

When a liberal rag has an agenda, no level is too low to sell it. In fact, the first example of the poor business given in the offending article “Employers Fight Tough Measures On Immigration,” details the plight of a business that didn’t have to hire illegal aliens… but the point is they might have to someday!

Mike Gilsdorf, the owner of a 37-year-old landscaping nursery in Littleton, Colo., saw the need for action by businesses last winter when he advertised with the Labor Department, as he does every year, for 40 seasonal workers at market-rate wages to plant, prune and carry his shrubs in the summer heat. Only one local worker responded to the notice, he said, and then did not show up for the job.

Mr. Gilsdorf was able to fill his labor force with legal immigrants from Mexico through a federal guest worker program. But that program has a tight annual cap, and Mr. Gilsdorf realized that he might not be so lucky next year. His business could fail, he said, and then even his American workers would lose their jobs.

“We’re not hiring illegals, we’re not paying under the table,” Mr. Gilsdorf said. “But if we don’t get in under the cap and nobody is answering our ads, we don’t have employees.” His group, Colorado Employers for Immigration Reform, is pressing Congress for a much larger and more flexible guest worker program.

I am too ignorant to see how the wages Mr. Gilsdorf pays are “market-rate” if he can’t find legal workers to employ at those wages. Oops, I keep forgetting the fact that he can find legal workers to employ! I would suggest that as soon as he can’t find legal workers to employ at his “market-rate” then it is no longer “market-rate.” Are we to assume that there is full employment in his part of Colorado? If not, how can “market-rate” wages not attract employees?

More