Archive for July, 2012


Double standard?…


Question: do you agree with Rush?

Rush: Obama “Trying To Dismantle…The American Dream” (via our friends at

“He is trying – Barack Obama is trying – to dismantle, brick by brick, the American dream. There’s no other way to put this. There’s no other way to explain this.” -Rush Limbaugh

Do you agree with Rush??



The Obama Blame-Game strategy


Who was right? … you decide.

The top tax rate under Jimmy Carter was 70 percent. Obama says we need more money from the rich (increase taxes) so we can spur economic growth. Then why did we have the recession under Jimmy Carter (the top tax rate was 70 percent)? It proves higher taxes do not grow the economy.







In 1980, President Carter, his supporters in Congress and the Liberal News Media (AKA Obama News Corp) asked how can we afford presidential candidate Ronald Reagan’s proposed tax cuts. Reagan’s critics claimed tax cuts would lead to more inflation and higher interest rates, while Reagan claimed the tax cuts would lead to more economic growth and higher living standards.


  1. Inflation went from 12.5 percent in 1980 to 3.9 percent in 1984.
  2. Economic growth went from minus .2 percent in 1980 to plus 7.3 percent in 1984.
  3. Interest rates dropped from 18.9 percent on a 30-year mortgage to 8 percent.


Economic growth was more than 50 percent higher for the next seven years after the tax cuts, than the previous seven years under Jimmy Carter.

Rapid economic growth unlike government spending programs (stimulus package) proved to be the most effective way to reduce unemployment and poverty (are you listening Mr. Obama?) while creating opportunity for the disadvantaged. Reagan’s peacetime boom created nearly 35 million jobs and the economy was one third larger when Reagan left office.


Under Reagan’s tax cuts, the top 10 percent of wage earners’ percentage of taxes paid went from 48 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. That means even though tax rates were lowered, more money came into the Treasury (which proves it’s not what the tax rate is, it’s how much money comes in).







John F. Kennedy (Democrat) said, “Our true choice is not between tax reduction on one hand and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget; just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.” (So business can expand.)

In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low. The soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut tax rates now. (Mr. Obama can you hear me, “now!”) With Kennedy’s across-the-board tax cuts, tax revenues climbed from 94 billion dollars in 1961 to 153 billion dollars in 1968 (62 percent increase). Reagan tax revenues went from just over 500 billion dollars to one trillion dollars.


When Harding took office in 1921, he faced a severe economic recession from Woodrow Wilson (Democrat). Harding with Treasury Secretary Mellon (Geitner could learn something from Mellon) cut government spending by 40 percent. After Harding’s death, President Calvin Coolidge and Mellon continued the tax and budget cut policies of Harding. Obama should adopt Coolidge’s actions. Coolidge cut taxes four times, reduced the national debt by 33 percent while maintaining surpluses every year in office. Christopher Frenze of the Joint Economic Committee said, “The Reagan tax cuts like similar measures enacted in:

1920 – Harding/Coolidge

1960 – John F. Kennedy

showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance and can increase the amount and share of tax payments by the rich.


Art Laffer (Economic Advisor to Reagan) said, “The policies in place by the Obama administration will not work. I do not see any improvement in the economy. There is no incentive to produce in this economy; too many regulations stagnating business creation.” He also feels very likely that double-dip recession can happen.



How can it even make sense…..


Drug test to receive free money?… you’re drug tested for you job.. should entitlement recipients be drug tested to receive those handouts?

Curious… survey question… should we drug test for benefits in MA?… all of the entitlements..Welfare, Foodstamps, Houseing, etc…. I’ll share this feed back on the show this weekend…

Speak up… thanks..


Broun Votes to Repeal Obamacare

“Today the House has done its job and reflected the will of the people by voting to repeal Obamacare.”
~Congressman Paul Broun, MD
Read more:


Approaching 75 years of age? … not good for your health

 In a conversation about the “future,” Dr. Suzanne Allen, head of emergency services at the Johnson City Medical Center in Tennessee, was asked if she has seen any affects of Obama Care in her work.  “Oh, yes. We are seeing cutbacks throughout the services we provide. For example, we are now having to deal with patients who would normally receive dialysis can no longer be accepted. In the past, there was always automatic approval under Medicare for anyone who needed dialysis — not anymore.” So, what will be their outcome? “They will die soon without dialysis,” she stated.

What about other services? She indicated as of 2013 (after the election), no one over 75 will be given major medical procedures unless approved by locally administered Ethics Panels. These Panels will determine whether a patient receives medical treatment or not. While details on specific operating procedures and schedules, Dr. Allen points out that most life-threatening emergencies do not occur during normal hospital business hours, and if there are emergencies that depend to be resolve within minutes or just few hours, the likely hood of getting these Panels approval in time to save a life are going to be very challenging and difficult, if not impossible she said.
This applies to major operations such as receiving stents, bypass surgery, kidney operations, or treating for an aneurysm that would be normally covered under Medicare today. In other words, if you needed a life-saving operation, Medicare will not provide coverage anymore after 2013 if you are 75 or over. When in 2013? “We haven’t been given a specific date — could be in January or July….but it’s after the election.”
This is shocking to anyone who will be 75 this year. Her advice — get healthy and stay healthy. We do not know the specifics of the actual implementation of the full Obama Care policies and procedures — “they haven’t filtered down to the local level yet. But we are already seeing severe cuts in what we provide to the elderly — we refused dialysis to an individual who was 78 just the other day….we refused to give stents to a gentleman who was in his late 80s.” Every day, she said, we are seeing these cutbacks aimed at reducing care across the board for anyone who is over 75.
We can only hope that Obama Care will be overturned by the Supreme Court — otherwise, this is a death sentence to those who are over 75… perhaps you should pass this on to your friends who are thinking of voting for Obama this year.
Regardless if you have private health care coverage now (a Medicare supplement) — it will no longer apply after 2013 if the Ethics Panels disapprove of a procedure that may save your life. Scary, scary, scary. Think about this. You? Your parents? Your loved ones?
Didn’t know about it? Of course, not. As Nancy Pelosi said….”well, if you want to know what’s in the bill, you’ll have to read it…” after it was passed.
This is a graphic reminder of the need to stay healthy. Get your plot now at Forest Lawn… while they last. Is this a death sentence to those of us who will reach 75?… Yes!

Please do pass this along to those in your address book.
Dr. Suzanne C. Allen, MD
is a real person:
Progressive ethics: If society deems you a burden due to age or infirmity, you should be willing to die to benefit society. 

Under the Fedora: Movies Mistakes and Reviews

I’m starting the column as I watch the previews before the movie Ted. They seem to be unending. The one that jumps out at me is the new one for the Hobbit. I’ve seen it before on TV and online but it is really special when seen on the big screen.

The Lord of the Rings Movies were triumphs of the cinematic art, that’s a big mountain for the Hobbit to climb but I suspect it and Jackson will do it.


There are two big developments in the Brett Kimberlin Story, first there is an utter defeat in Court but that defeat is just a start:

I’m very delighted at Aaron Walker’s victory but the fact that he had to go though he had to go through months of this stuff, and the expenses involved in this is a national disgrace.

And it’s not over. Stacy McCain doesn’t have a fixed abode yet, Patterico, Erick Erickson and Wolfe’s swatters are still at large.

There is quite a slog to go through before this is done, but there was, at least to me an even more interesting development to this story. Salon came out and Defended Kimberlin. The question to me is why?

There is, in fact, no real plus side to defending Brett Kimberlin. At best he is a small player in the big game and even if he were more, Kimberlin & co are only effective if there is no attention to their activities.

With federal suits, the attention of bloggers around the nation, nearly 90 members of congress either signing documents against Swatting or asked about the same and Robert Stacy McCain not only continuing his revelations but getting so many instalanches it’s a wonder Charles Johnson hasn’t climbed onto a ledge, And argument for Kimberlin’s potential value and effectiveness for the left would be less plausable than the success of a national letter writing campaign in behalf of The Secret Life of Desmond Pfeiffer.

So if this is the case why on earth would Salon bring up the name of Kimberlin, let along defend him? Why would the left invest an asset that has existed for so long in such a losing endeavor? Why even if the MSM is doing their best to ignore developments even bother making the argument from the left in defense of the speedway bomber a figure that a party might not want to associate with in an election year?

I think this is preparing the ground for new revelations that might suggest there is more here than meets the eye.


There is a lot of angst on the left over the PA voter ID law. The media is speculating hundreds of thousands of Democrat voters will not be able to produce a valid ID particularly in cities. One local paper is simply breathless over it:

Second comes the GOP’s own admission — conveniently after the fact, of course — that their agenda was indeed political. The moment came last month at a GOP State Committee meeting, when House Republican Majority Leader Mike Turzai recounted Republicans’ legislative accomplishments for the year. Among them, Turzai announced to enthusiastic applause: “Voter ID — which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania — done.”

Pennsylvania didn’t need the voter ID law. There was no credible evidence of voters impersonating other voters at the polls. There was one reason, and one reason only, to pass the new requirement, and it wasn’t the security of the ballot. It was the outcome of the election. We knew it all along. Now the GOP House leader has put it out there for everyone to see.

Left unanswered is the question why a democrat voter would be less likely to have an ID, an item that is highly necessary these days, PARTICULAR in a city than a republican.

Why should the use of an item needed at any bank, to cash any paycheck or government check, to use a credit card, an item you are asked to produce at a hospital, at a supermarket or even to buy booze cause the results of an election to change? Do Democrats need these ID less that republicans?

What could possibility be going on that would cause the passage of a strong voter ID law backed by an Army of Davids equipped with iPhones and internet connections along with an energized Tea Party with volunteers willing and able to serve as poll watchers to strike such fear into the hearts of Democrat leaning Union Stewards and Machine Pols who in the past have managed to deliver their precincts to their party by overwhelming margins?

I suspect the people screaming the loudest know the answer and that’s why they are screaming.

Meanwhile while the left complains about a lack of official documents among voters they are now obsessing about Mitt Romney’s Tax returns and once again there is an obvious question that isn’t being asked:

Maybe it’s just me but if the IRS saw something untoward during in Mitt Romney’s tax returns, I have a feeling that they would not hesitate for one minute to pursue it and extract every penalty that would be due.

Now Warren Buffett for example has a big back tax bill that both the Huffington Post and the Blaze has reported on. Maybe it’s just me but I’m thinking if Mitt Romney had a similar problem, if he owed taxes, or had a big penalty or had to go to court to defend such issues we might just have heard about it during the Massachusetts Gov Campaign, or during his Senate Campaign vs Ted Kennedy, or the 2008 Presidential Campaign, or even in the primaries in 2012…

but we haven’t.

Well after all everybody knows the IRS isn’t interested in digging into the finances of people they think they can get money out of?

This election isn’t going to be close.


Ernest Brognine has died. I grew up on McHale’s Navy and by an odd coincidence was watching bits of season one last week. Borgnine has worked steady in films and even stars in a new picture that was released this year. I suspect his 10 years in the Navy and Italian upbringing had something to do with his work ethic.

Borgnine’s best work was In film, and he won an Oscar for Marty but he will be most remembered for the PT 73 to one generation

and as Mermaid Man in the Spongebob Cartoons to another.

Funny about that isn’t it?


Haven’t talked much Doctor Who, but Rich’s comic blog has a Doctor Who James Bond crossover going on, apparently in this story Bond is a Time Lord and the different actors are regenerations of him.

Don’t care for the current version of Bond myself.


The All Star Game was yesterday and I don’t care. When they decided it was OK to end in a Tie instead of playing it out I lost interest.


Sadly recently found out that an elderly friend’s wife has been diagnosed with Cancer when I mentioned to someone that she was going through chemotherapy at 80+ the person I talked to asked why she was bothering? It reminded me of an old joke:

Three people are in conversation when one mentions an acquaintance of the three has just died at 84. While the first express sorrow the 2nd person declares that nonsense saying:

“He lived a full long life, had a great time and lived into his 80’s. There is nothing wrong with dying at 84.”

At this the 3rd man replies: “Easy for you to say, you’re not 83. “

Every life has value, that’s what pro-life is all about.


My review of TED is available at you can read it there but here is a quick peek concerning something I’ve seen brought up in a lot of reviews

At first glance the idea that John has a smoking hot successful girlfriend, Mika Kunis makes no sense until you realize that every single other male Character in the movie and frankly almost all the female ones are even more dysfunctional or downright sick compared to him. In the population of this movie Mark Wahlberg’s character IS the pick of the litter.

This movie wasn’t as good or as bad as people said it was.

See you all next week.


Join us this morning at 7 am for Conservatively Speaking

Mike Wade and John Weston will continue to look at the races shaping the 2012 elections and the fall out from the Supreme Court Ruling … so is it a tax or isn’t a tax?

Depends on when you ask the question…


» recent comments

» archives

» meta