MV

Has anyone noticed that the Obamas are vacationing on Martha's Vineyard? Why might that be?

I mean, Clinton vacationed there with his Hollywood friends, but why does Barry O' go to the Vineyard? His Hollywood friends like Oprah, etc. rent out yachts. His constituents go to "tar beach" (that is the roof of the building for those who have never lived in an urban Blue State). So why does Barry take the whole entourage to the Vineyard?

The answer is surprisingly easy: it is about the only place in the United States that: (a) will welcome him; and (b) is pleasant enough at this time of year.

Let's look at the first part of that .... Only in Massachusetts is Obama essentially guaranteed a welcome. After all this is the State of Ed Markey and Barney Frank (not to mention John Kerry and Nicki Tsongas). It is the State where no liberal lunacy, no matter how extraordinary, is viewed with disapproval.  Compare that to, say, Wyoming? Imagine Barry O at a dude ranch with his daughters (who most likely would love to ride) and his albatross Michelle? Hell the Secret Service would go ballistic trying to find a place remote and secure enough where some irate rancher won't take a pot-shot at him.

He sure as hell is not going to visit the Alamo or be secure anywhere pleasant south of the Mason-Dixon. Seattle is too cold and rainy, although the natives might -- just might welcome him. What's wrong with Hawaii? Why not go "home?" Do the natives know that spending has to be cut to stop supporting the Islands o' Welfare? Or Chicago -- spend  a nice vacation in the Windy City. Afraid that Rahm might not exactly welcome you? Or that some hidden piece of your history might crawl out from underneath a rock?

No, the Vineyard it is.  I wonder if we can sell it to Venezuela?

Still dont get it

The Treasury "slammed" S&P's decision to down grade U.S. debt yesterday -- because there was a $2 trillion difference in their calculations. You see, the U.S. Treasury thought that a national debt of $20 trillion by 2020 was significantly different than a debt of $22 trillion.  S&P thought that the difference was irrelevant to the downgrade.

It shows that the Treasury -- it is part of the Administrative Branch and hence reports to Comrade Barry  -- still does not "get it." Nor does Barry or anyone else in the Democratic Party as well as the bulk of Republicans (just as stupid).  It is not about the debt ceiling, folks, or even the childish way it was fought over. IT IS ABOUT SPENDING. Or more specifically, spending money we don't have and likely never will.

It is about the idiocy that passes for politics in Washington. S&P made it clear that they were looking for about $4 trillion in spending cuts -- and a clear path to a balanced budget. Washington made it clear that they are concerned about votes and couldn't give a fig about fiscal prudence.

And before you liberal morons start talking about the need to raise taxes again, that is NOT the issue. It is about the ability to run a healthy economy. If you tax, tax, tax with absolutely no vision to cut spending, you can never retire your debt, and given your playbook, likely will merely spend the extra monies raised. Did a Democrat ever meet a spending program they did not like?  All taxes will do in this environment is stifle whatever economic growth we might be able to eke out. Taxes kill growth -- this is a rather easy lesson to learn. Always have and always will, since the beginning of human monetary history. Why Larry Summers or Tim Geithner (and Comrade Barry) think that they would somehow have the magic fingers to effect a different result mystifies me.  All evidence to the contrary: they have blown a trillion dollars with precious little success. And it is their vaunted health program that is the single greatest contributor to the future debt. Only followed by social security -- which was raided long ago by liberal pirates leaving an IOU.

And we also know that any fiscal sanity has to involve the expedient of shutting off the flow of funds to non-American citizens.  Which political party will have the fortitude to move ahead with that? We already know the Dems want to open the doors wide to anyone that can hoof it across our borders and make citizens (actually read that as Democrat voters) of every illegal already here.  This is not going to help things. 

Harry Reid's $3 trillion in spending cuts through projected savings by ceasing spending in Afghanistan and Iraq is just as much of a joke as Comrade Barry's savings projected by the elimination of waste and fraud in Medicare/Medicaid.  Can you imaging Eric Holder's Justice Dept. going after minority welfare cheats? Neither can I. This a man who declines to prosecute Black Panthers filmed intimidating voters on election day. Not likely.  What about hundreds of minority youth running rampant attacking white people in Wisconsin (of all places)? Any likely movement on getting to the bottom of that hate crime?  The point is, there is ZERO chance that this Administration will ever get serious about their job.

And that is why S&P were entirely correct in downgrading us.

This kind of crap passes as journalism

I am just so sick of lefties and liberals whining about the "tea party" -- itself a loose coalition of Americans who just want a smaller government and more say about how their taxes are spent. To many Tea Party folk, the present is very similar to the past .,. when Americans went to war about taxation without representation. They feel Washington and the power elites of both parties are so disconnected from where they are as citizens, that they might as well be sending their tax checks to Beijing.

Sound outrageous? Look at the following from CNN that parades as "news" or in this case "opinion" which readers are encouraged to accept at truth:


(CNN) -- We have become victims of the Tyranny of 87. This is not a reference to the years immediately preceding the French Revolution of 1789. I am referring to July 2011 in the United States of America, the greatest democracy in the world. Or so I thought.


The Tyranny of 87 is the bizarre, surreal, but all too real situation we are in right now in the midst of perhaps the most significant and economically turbulent issue that has been before Congress in decades: the raising of the debt ceiling.

The tyranny is coming from the 87 members of Congress from the tea party caucus, whose selfish and irresponsible demands during the debt ceiling negotiations may very well mean either outright default or what could be even worse and too late to avoid -- the downgrade of the country's gold standard AAA credit rating. What is worse, these 87 little tyrants have no clear understanding of the fallout of either scenario.

Maria Cardona is a Democratic strategist, a principal at the Dewey Square Group, a former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton, and former communications director to the Democratic National Committee. 

 I wish to take issue with Ms. Cardona.  By what measure does she think that she can state that the "87" have "no clear understanding of the fallout of either scenario[?]" Just who made her the judge and jury on this such that CNN should have this so prominently displayed?  Part of this is a continuing assault by the left on the "Tea Party" as a conspiracy of the ignorant -- only Liberals truly understand economics.

But her statements are also factually inaccurate -- and part of Comrade Obama's on-going scare tactics. Let's get this straight: The U.S. is not about to default. OK? Got it? That is because the U.S. has revenue and money -- it is just that the Treasury (controlled by Comrade Obama) chooses to spend it according to its political will. We have the money to pay our debt obligations -- and can continue to do so almost indefinitely, provided our country does not simply roll over and die. What Comrade Obama cannot do, is to spend in all the ways he wants to. Tough on Comrade Barry. Tough on the millions of welfare mooches and government bureaucrats dreaming up new ways to regulate us -- and justify their jobs.

Is that good? Probably not -- the distribution of the enforced spending cuts will/would likely favor Comrade Barry's constituents -- and we KNOW for certain that no jobs will be produced from that quarter. So GDP shrinks.  Instead, the cuts should probably come from useless bureaucracy and spending on those whom we have no obligation legal or moral to support anyway.  And THAT is the way the Tea Party sees it.

So as to tyranny ... excuse me, Mrs. Hugo Chavez ... I mean Cardona ... these "87" were ELECTED by the American people. These people are unknowns, not part of any great political machine that tried to elect their candidate: they were elected by Americans alarmed at unchecked government spending, alarmed that America might spend its way into 3rd world credit status. I'd say that reflects a hell of a lot more understanding of the situation than you apparently have.

That AAA debt rating is in jeopardy precisely because of the reckless and profligate spending that your Party proposes. Your colleagues yammer on about jobs and how cuts will affect jobs: your party spent over a trillion dollars on jobs and economy and unemployment has gone up.  Fanciful statements of how many jobs you created or saved would be like me claiming royal connections. Lies or at best completely unsubstantiated, by any measure.  To preserve the AAA rating we need to show that we do not spend more than we can earn. You need to balance the books.

Tyrants ... doing what they were elected to do.  Why is it the left always feels that they can slander and make abusive statements about people who disagree with them? Biden called the 87 arsonists.  What?

Can you picture Obama in this picture?

So can you picture the puffed-up egomaniac that is our President in this picture?



Me neither. This is genuine. Barry would have teleprompters set up.