http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com

While WH tours were cancelled due to sequestration disappointing mere common  schoolchildren, the First Kids are living it up during Spring Break at the  Atlantis Resort in the Bahamas!

Good to be the kids of the  King!

Once again hammering home the point that  it’s good to be the King!
From Judicial Watch:
“If you wondered  what is being done about the extravagant spring break vacation taken by Obama’s  daughters in the Bahamas, wonder no more. Breitbart News, who broke the first  report on the girls’ latest vacation, is now reporting thatJudicial Watch is  looking into the matter.
“The Obamas’ unnecessary personal luxury travel  is an abuse of office in this age of sequester, unemployment, and out-of-control  government debt,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Breitbart News.  “Taxpayers are right to wonder why the Obamas repeatedly take personal trips  with seemingly little regard for the resulting drain on precious tax  dollars…”

Read more at http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2013/03/sequester-pain-apparently-is-only-for.html#0lP7fesvRQiEl4MP.99

Part of the way history is publicly remembered and allowed to exert an influence over the cultural milieu is through the erection of assorted monuments and memorials. This is itself a practice that, in part, traces its origin back through the pages of sacred scripture.

In Joshua 4:5-7, the representatives of the tribes of Israel are instructed as to the following: “Each of you is to take up a stone on his shoulder, according to the number of tribes of the Israelites, to serve as a sign among you. In the future, when your children ask you, ‘What do these stones mean?’ tell them that the flow of the Jordan was cut off before the ark of the covenant…These stones are to be a memorial to the people of Israel forever.”

This is not the only incident in Scripture where the believer is admonished to respect assorted physical historical commemorations. In Proverbs 22:28, the child of God is admonished to remove not the ancient landmark.

No doubt one of the reasons thorough going secularists and even their sissified allies among certain branches of the clergy leaning to the left fanatically lobby for the removal of religious symbols and emblems commemorating solemn events in the life of the nation is to no doubt alter our perception of history in the attempt to shift the country’s underlying values and focus. By so doing, it is hoped that Americans will go from the most part being an independently inclined group of individuals who will protect their precious heritage to the point of laying down one’s life should circumstances require it to one where the state is looked to as the first as the source of goodness and truth which it is free to redefine as changing circumstances warrant.

One such perspective lent a voice calling for the removal of Peace Cross (also just as correctly referred to as Victory Cross) in Bladensburg, Maryland. The American Humanist Association is orchestrating the campaign because the monument is erected on public land. In the mind of this agitprop front group, this violates the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment.

However, one area minister in the 9/27/2012 Gazette newspaper of suburban Maryland provided what he considered a number of Christian reasons as to why the memorial cross should be taken down. Rev. Brian Adams of the Mount Rainier Christian Church is aligning himself with the outcome advocated by the American Humanist Association because he does not want the Cross associated with militarism and patriotism as a “general symbol of sacrifice.”

In making his argument, Rev. Adams enunciated a number of questionable assumptions. He insists that the memorial is blaspheming the Cross by honoring violent people with weapons defending a country while they try to kill people from other countries.

No one in their right mind said war was a picnic. But how else will at least a small sliver of goodness otherwise survive in a fallen world? Does Rev. Adams honestly believe that once things have degenerated to the point of physical hostilities that appeals to reason, compassion, and the brotherhood of man alone will be enough to dissuade those bent on utter desolation?

If the way Rev. Adams categorizes the Crucifixion and a number of Biblical imperatives is a true summation of his doctrinal perspective, as a denomination the Disciples of Christ is in serious trouble.

Though it along with the Resurrection is one of the building blocks of the Christian religion and an offence or stumbling block to those hoping to make it to Heaven under the power of their own good works which are as filthy rags, the death of Christ upon that accursed tree was anything but, to use Rev. Adams’ words, “the symbol of the son of God dying peacefully.” History and medical science concur that it was in fact one of the most tortuous forms of execution ever devised.

Because the believer so appreciates the price paid by Jesus at the hill of Golgotha, over the centuries artists and craftsmen inspired by the moving beauty of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of all sinners have transformed this implement of abject fear and terror visually into a beacon of hope and adoration. However, in the context of what happened that original Good Friday afternoon, the bejeweled sculptures and golden masterpieces are about as accurate as depicting a ride in Old Sparky the electric chair as if it was an overstuffed Lazy Boy recliner wrapped in a plush snuggy.

By referencing a work as readily available as “The Case For Christ” by Lee Stroebel (so much so that many ministries give away free paperback editions), both disciple and skeptic alike approximately 2000 years after this hinge point of history get a better idea of just how peaceful the passing of this Nazarene carpenter and rabbi was from this world. Stroebel in a chapter on the medical evidence lays out these horrors.

First, Jesus would have been secured to the cross by driving 5 inch nails through a portion of the wrist containing a nerve nearly as sensitive as the one in the area of the so-called funny bone. Once secured in this position, the cross would have been hoisted upright with the feet being secured in position in a manner similar to and as painful as that used upon the wrists. Yet, the suffering had only just begun.

The gravity pulling Jesus downward as the cross was thrust upward would have stretched at his arms, causing his shoulders to dislocate. With gravity pulling the individual downward, whatever waning strength remains in the individual is mustered to thrust the body upward in a reflex to merely continue the otherwise simple process of breathing so few of us even give a second thought to. In so doing, splinters would be driven deeper and deeper into the flesh of the back as it slid against a roughly hued pole not crafted with comfort in mind. This struggle would eventually result in suffocation as the victim in agony would grow too exhausted to continue.

Death upon the cross was of such a terrifying overwhelming agony that a new word had to be coined in order to accurately describe its unique variety of suffering. That word was none other than “excruciating”.

So fundamentally wrong about this fundamental of the true Christian faith, it is no wonder Rev. Adams is so profoundly mistaken in regards to other interpretative matters as well. Rev. Adams writes that the cross is the symbol of Jesus “telling his followers to put down their weapons, and dying for the sake of hope, for the forgiveness and salvation of even those who put him to death.” What Rev. Adams has done here has been to take a course of action applied in a particular incident and elevated it to the status of a categorical universal imperative.

Rev. Adams is correct in the sense that in John 10:18 Jesus instructs that no man takes His life but that He gives it willingly. This was demonstrated in Luke 4 when a mob angered at words Christ delivered in the synagogue conspired to hurl Jesus over a cliff. Amidst such homicidal frenzy, Jesus miraculously perambulated on through unnoticed and unscathed.

Yet, later on, the Savior was not as eager to elude His captors. When Peter attempted to rescue Jesus resulting in the severing of the ear of the high priest’s servant, Jesus declares in Matthew 26:53-54, “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once and he will put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen this way (NIV)?” Christ chastised a foremost disciple because His unjust arrest was to unfold so that the greater purpose of His being slain from the foundation of the world might be fulfilled so that all calling upon the name of the Lord might be saved.

Though each of us are valued having been made in the image of God, the way we proceed into Glory will not cause the very cosmos to unhinge if it does not transpire in a precise manner as foretold as a part the public record of religious history. Therefore, though honor is to be bestowed upon those that lose their lives for the sake of the Gospel, one won’t likely be given additional brownie points or a crown in Heaven should one not do everything moral within one’s own power to preserve one’s own life.

In Matthew 5:39, Christ instructs his disciples to turn the other cheek. Often, the application of this passage has encouraged an undue pacifism on the part of certain quietist sects and overly pious theologians. However, what is being addressed here is more akin to individual insults and certainly not the basis around which to build a foreign or defense policy.

The Gospels should not be construed as denying the individual the right of self defense should the individual feel the necessity to protect their life and that of their family. In Luke 22:36, Christ instructs, “…and he that

The Question I have is why is there so much anger directed at him by the media who feel they were duped?  Why?  After all, this is the same media that has ignored every lie, both little and big, President Obama has told and then been caught in.  So why the double standard?

Manti Te’o was just following President Obama’s example.

President Obama has repeatedly tried to paint himself as a man of the little people, yet his entire life has been of privilege.  He was privileged rom the time he entered one of the most prestigious private schools as a child to the moment he was swept into office on a wave of “Hope and Change” that no one with a brain in their heads believed.

President Obama regularly talked about how he would halve the national deficit by the end of his first term.  And what did we get?  Another six trillion in debt on top of our nine trillion at the time.  And the media just sat there and acted like it was no big deal.

President Obama begged and pleaded with people to believe him when he said he didn’t want to take away the second amendment rights of Americans.  Yet what is he doing today?  He is trying to do an end run around Congress and seeking ways to impinge upon the second amendment rights of Americans.

Obama lied about his mother and the evil health care company that supposedly cheated her.  Then, of course, there was the lie by Obama’s surrogates about Mitt Romney causing the death of a man’s wife with cancer during the last campaign.

Fast and furious?  All but buried.

Benghazigate?  Every time Hillary is slated to testify she has another slip and fall or complication to her health.

The list goes on and on.

So I say to the mainstream media, give Manti Te’o a break!  At least until you are serious about investigating the goings on of the Oval Office.  You know, something that actually matters?  As compared to a demented college athlete who once again showed how easily you fools can be taken?

Last year, 12-year-old Oklahoman Kendra St. Clair was home alone, unsupervised. At some point she accessed her mother’s handgun — a .40-caliber Glock. Then Kendra pulled the trigger.

And that bullet tore into flesh.

You probably know the rest of the story.

Or maybe not.

The bullet tore into the flesh of a 32-year-old home invader, causing him to flee. Kendra was left scared and crying, but unscathed.

The story of Albuquerque 11-year-old Alyssa Gutierrez turned out differently. Three teenage burglars broke into her home, but they fled after she merely grabbed her mother’s rifle. No one was hurt, but the criminals were caught.

But sometimes innocents do get shot. Such was the case with an 11-year-old Palmview boy in 2010. At home with his mother, he got his hands on a .22-caliber rifle. And after the two armed and masked illegal aliens who had broken into their home shot through their bedroom door after the mother refused to open it, hitting the boy in the hip, he returned fire. He struck one of the criminals in the neck, causing them both to flee. They were apprehended when the wounded miscreant showed up at a local hospital.

These were children who lived in places called Bryan County, Albuquerque, and Palmview. Thank God, they still live in those places. And that’s what can happen when kids and guns mix.

If you’re unacquainted with my work, you perhaps didn’t expect this piece to take the turn it did. You perhaps didn’t hear these stories; the mainstream media doesn’t report such things much. But now that you have, ponder this question: do you wish these children hadn’t had access to firearms? Because they won’t if the gun-control crowd gets its way.

Of course, the above real-life stories are just that: anecdotes. Some will say they’re rare and not statistically significant. And I suppose they are rare; most people will never face such evil and have the ability to thwart it. Yet they’re not nearly as rare as a Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech: your chance of dying in a school shooting approximates that of being struck by lightning. In contrast, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans each year use guns for self-defense and that 400,000 of them say they would have been killed if they hadn’t been armed. That’s 400,000 a year.

Do I believe they all would have been murdered? No. People have a penchant for the dramatic, and fear and stress can corrupt judgment. But even if only one half of one percent of them are correct, that’s 2000 innocent lives saved with guns every year. This is approximately 76 times as many as were killed at Sandy Hook and considerably more than were lost in all American gun massacres during the last 40 years. And if five percent of them are right, it amounts to 20,000 innocent lives saved — far more than the number murdered with guns in America every year.

Ah, “that big ‘if,’” some will say. Woulda’, coulda’, maybe, perhaps, I suppose. Of course, we could also mention that those 2.5 million annual defensive gun uses represent rapes, robberies, and assaults thwarted — usually without firing a shot. And that’s part of the problem. It’s a headline when a gun goes off; it can be head to the next story when a criminal is merely scared off.

As for hypotheticals, they aren’t as emotionally compelling as a school shooting, where you see victims’ pictures, grieving relatives, and emergency vehicles dominating your TV. Perhaps it would be different if we, as in a science-fiction movie, could somehow get a glimpse into alternate gun-free futures, where the world’s Kendras and Alyssas and millions of other good citizens couldn’t defend themselves. Maybe if the citizenry saw in living color how many of these people, while now safe, would have been left brutalized, killed, and lying in a pool of their own blood, we could compete for emotional impact. Thus we should remember, to use a play on a Frederic Bastiat saying, that a bad policy-maker observes only what can be seen; a good policy-maker observes what can be seen — and what must be foreseen. Dead innocents killed with guns can be seen; the innocents who would be killed were it not for guns must be foreseen.

Yet even what can be seen, such as the stories I opened with, won’t usually be because they don’t fit the anti-gun mainstream-media narrative. Instead we hear about how 13 children a day are killed with firearms, with no mention that this “‘statistic’ includes ‘children’ up to age 19 or 24, depending on the source [most of these incidents involve teenage gang members shooting each other],” writes Guy Smith at Gun Facts. Or we’re asked questions such as “Why does anyone need an AR-15?” Perhaps we should ask the then 15-year-old Houston boy who used that very weapon to defend himself and his younger sister against two burglars in 2010.

Here’s what you might learn: being a light gun (seven pounds) with little recoil, it’s an ideal firearm for youngsters and women. A lady I knew once fired a shouldered shotgun when she was a girl, and the kick knocked her on her backside; an AR won’t do this. This is partially because its high-tech mechanism absorbs much of the recoil energy, but also because it is not nearly as powerful as even many hunting rifles.

How can this be? Isn’t this “scary black gun” a “killing machine,” as Piers Morgan put it? As explained and illustrated in this video, this class of weapons is designed to wound a 170-lb. man, while a high-powered hunting rifle’s purpose is to kill a 300 to 800-lb. deer or moose. In fact, in some states and countries it is illegal to hunt large game with an AR-caliber round (.223) for fear that its relative ineffectiveness will leave a wounded and suffering animal wandering the forest. As to this, note that the AR-wielding 15-year-old Houston boy shot one of the intruders at least 3 times — and the man lived. It might have been a different story had the teen used a 30.06 deer rifle, and a very different one with a buckshot-loaded shotgun.

So do kids and guns mix? Well, kids and their guns have sometimes been mixing it up with criminals — and coming out on top. But neither kids nor anyone else mixes well with guns when ending up on the wrong end of one. This happened at Sandy Hook. It happened in Aurora, Co. It happens during many other garden-variety crimes. And it could conceivably happen scores of thousands of times more every year. The only way to find out precisely how many more times is to disarm the American people.

But the facts continue to be, as much as liberals guffaw over it, that it is not guns that kill people, but other people.  These “other” people are either criminals by choice with a long history of violent crimes, but who cannot be kept in prison because liberals don’t think locking people up is a good idea, or mentally unstable individuals that, again, liberals refuse to let our society help because they think it is politically impolite to label people as not being in full control of their faculties.

Look, I own several guns.  I have a Mossberg 500 shotgun (with breacher barrel), a Saiga .308 (with high capacity magazine), and two .40 caliber handguns.  You know how many people have been murdered by those guns?  The answer is none.  Yes, contrary to popular liberal belief, the guns I own don’t murder anyone.  They haven’t murdered anyone because I am a responsible, mentally stable, law abiding citizen.

And, just to further test liberal theory that it really is guns that kill people, recently I took out all the guns, laid them on my dresser with clips and ammo.  I then went to sleep.  In the morning, I woke up and the ammo did not mysteriously jump into the clips, the clips did not mysteriously pop themselves into the guns, and the guns did not cock themselves and fire at me in the middle of the night.  I think that this test proves, rather conclusively, that without the hand of someone that wants to use the gun to commit a crime actually loading and firing the weapon, nothing bad will happen.

I also think that there is a common thread clearly able to be seen here.  These sorts of criminals and nutjobs who like to commit mass murder are picking places that liberals have deemed, arbitrarily of course, to be safe.  You know, like Gun Free School Zones?  Yeah, ask the parents of those dead children in Newtown, Connecticut how that worked out for them.

You know, it’s funny.  For as much as liberals want to blame guns for violence and murders, and work oh so diligently to pry them from the hands of American citizens, you know where you never hear of mass shootings and murders?  I’ll tell you where: NRA meetings, gun shows, and Tea Party rallies.  Funny, huh?  Because at each and every one of those events, I guarantee you, people are packing.  And, if they aren’t packing, there are guns nearby and ready to be used in self-defense.  Gee, I wonder why there aren’t mass murders galore at these sorts of events if guns really are the problem?

Of course, we all know the answer.  Even liberals, as dim as they are, know the answer too.  But they won’t admit it.  The reason is, as the old saying goes, guns don’t kill people.  But crazy ass liberals who think that they are entitled to other people’s stuff sure do.  And sometimes they even use guns.  So the answer, as always, is it simply keep liberals (those people who want to take other people’s stuff or even life) from having guns.

Simple.

Yes, that’s right, Democrats, along with a minority of the majority Republicans in the House, voted to raise your taxes as part of the deal to avert the “fiscal cliff”!  The Senate approved the measure and Obama, the champion of the middle class, signed off on the deal that will strip money from your paycheck.  FYI, I’m firmly middle class.

In addition to raising taxes on the “rich”, liberals on both side of the aisle and in the White House also approved the end to the 2% FICA tax rate cut which you, I, and millions of Americans had been enjoying.  That’s ok in their minds though.  See, they are hoping that with the New Year, you’ll be getting a raise of more than 2% and that you won’t notice that they have increased your taxes and your take home pay has gone down.

It’s a sneaky psychological ploy for sure, hoping that they can sneak this one by as many people as possible.  But it is just typical liberalism, pure and simple.  Still, as prices continue to inflate faster than pay rates are going up, I do have to wonder how many people will be left scratching their heads when their checks start rolling in.

Most people I know haven’t received more than a one or two percent raise (if any) each year since Obama was first elected.  I worry, for myself and my family, that our pay is basically going to be stagnant from last year.  That means that there will not be extra money to do the things we need to do

Vacation?  Probably that can be completely forgotten about now.  Too bad for all those seasonal workers at the beach who won’t have us visiting their restaurants and attractions.  Sorry guys and gals.

New car for the wife?  Oh, she needs one, but looks like it will be at least another year and, probably, a used car to help save money.  Sorry to all you union autoworkers.  And I’m doubly sorry to all you non-union autoworkers.

Good thing there’s been the NHL lockout this year, because I have saved some money by not having to pay for my season tickets.

But, even with the money saved by that situation, I was hoping have enough money to put new windows in the house and get the sewer line permanently fixed.  Well, guess what?  Looks like one or the other now and not both.  Hope whomever doesn’t get my business this year understands that I wanted to hire them, but liberals in Washington forced my hand.

But there’s a really painful thing that resulted from the “fiscal cliff” deal that few are talking about.  That painful thing is that spending was left unchecked.  Yes, the government will still be spending more this year than it will bring in.  And by a lot!  It’s going to be another year and another trillion dollar plus deficit for Washington DC.  That’s another $3,000 in debt for every man, woman, and child in America.

So, I say again, happy New Year!  And to all you who voted for liberals?  Well, you own it!

Merry Christmas!

The White House is festive, peddling sin and in vice,
Everyone’s drunk on their power, yes, even the mice.
They dance and they dine, with important people and such,
While the rest of us suffer through an economy that sucks.

The Obamaphone Lady, nestled all snug in her bed,
Dreams of more handouts that will pay for her bread,
And Hillary in her ‘kerchief, is happy you see,
She won’t have to answer question about Benghazi –

Out on my lawn, I heard such a clatter,
I sprang out of bed, to behold what’s the matter.
A gang of Obama voters where stealing my car,
Because to them I am rich, and they’re more worthy by far.

So I ran to my cabinet, and grabbed my Mossberg,
I filled it with rounds, and fired, and heard;
Complaints and screams the hoodlums did shout,
Wondering why I was racist – of that they had no doubt.

Up in Michigan, the unions are floored,
Thinking Obama’s new term meant they would get more.
But when confronted with the now enshrined right to work,
They rioted and broke things, generally acting like jerks.

“Socialism forever!  Now give us our stuff!
“How dare you defy us!  How dare you rebuff!”
They attacked those who opposed them, the press got it too,
How dare they document the chaotic liberal zoo!

Meanwhile Michelle is decked in the fanciest of clothes,
She walks around proud, to the sky points her nose;
Eat veggies she orders with a maniacal grin,
To not do so?  It is such a sin.

Once more a slaughter in “gun free” school zone,
The lessons of liberal failure always hit home;
As parents mourn, their dead daughters and sons,
Obama screams gleefully, about taking our guns!

Secretly he’s happy, oh he most certainly is,
Don’t let him fool you, he doesn’t grieve for those kids;
They were just more worries, a drain on the State,
Sucking dry the coffers at some future date.

In January looms the so-called cliff that is fiscal,
Liberals defy reality, their protests oh so primal.
“Give us more taxes!”  That is always their plan,
They want their free lunch, and down the road kick the can.

Harry and Nancy and Obama do bitch,
Holding America hostage, because they hate the “rich”.
But what can be done? They’ve shut all the doors.
Our leaders are nothing but pompous asses and whores.

Yes whores!  You heard me!  Was I not plain?
They’ve sold themselves for fortune, for power, and fame!
They don’t care about you!  They don’t care about me!
“To Hell with you all!” That’s their slogan, you see?

Our children’s money Obama wants to spend and not save,
Worst of all? John Boehner seems willing to cave.
So the President proclaims, as he drifts off to sleep,
“Merry Liberal Christmas to all! Now Get ready to leap!”

Recently, the federal government, particularly President Obama’s Department of Transportation, carried this “black box” attitude of government power to literally include a mandate for “black boxes” in cars traveling on the nation’s roads.  Of course, the common excuses are being issued by the loyal bureaucrats who are desperately seeking to justify their cushy salaries.  Salaries, of course, paid for by Americans so that these bureaucrats can interfere with the lives of Americans.

Those excuses include making the roads safer, helping accident investigation, etc.  Blah, blah, blah.  But the truth is that, even without government regulation requiring these devices, many cars already have a “black box” installed and more and more new vehicles are being equipped with them every year.  Why?  Because of the free markets.

“Black boxes” do serve a great number of important roles for automakers, insurance companies, and even us every day drivers.  First, they protect those of us who are not at fault when something bad happens.  If I step on my brakes and the brakes don’t work, the “black box” records that.  If the fault is with the car’s design then the automobile manufacturer can be held accountable for any damage due to a faulty product.  If the reason is because I didn’t maintain my car’s brakes, well, the “black box” let’s people know that too.  If there is an accident where a little old lady claims she hit her brakes, but witnesses say she actually sped up, the recorder can tell whether she hit the gas by mistake and solve that mystery.  If cops stop a young punk barreling through a residential neighborhood at fifty miles per hour and he claims the officers were wrong to stop him and that he wasn’t speeding?  The “black box” tells the truth.

So, you see, there is no real reason for the government to get involved in this sort of thing.  People have already realized the usefulness of these devices on their own.  Automobile companies install them already and people already buy the cars with these devices on them.  But what Washington D.C. beltway bureaucrats want to do is make sure that they are installed and, furthermore, that the DOT has access to this data.  This is beyond anything our Constitution allows our federal government to do, no matter how much liberals spin words to try and claim that such a declaration is just “right wing” crazy talk.

Black boxes can be installed with RFD transmitters, meaning that someone would not even need to access the car’s cabin in order to collect the data.  Think about how creepy it would be for government vans to drive up and down your street, collecting data from every black box in every car people own.

Can’t happen?  How do you think utility companies measure electricity, gas, and water usage in many areas around the country?  Think about that before you simply let the federal government have carte blanche access to your driving data.  Which is exactly what they want.

What will they do with it?  The same thing government always does: bludgeon us over the head and make criminals of law-abiding citizens.  Liberals always claim they will do no such thing.  Their track, however, record puts the lie to such claims.

As we all know, President Obama made a proposal, correctly called “unserious”, for avoiding the looming “fiscal cliff”.  The plan was basically soak the “rich” and maybe, possibly, we’ll cut some loosely defined spending a decade down the line.  That proposal would not, obviously, have solved anything.  But it would have made the far left base of the Democratic party, people who just adore socialism and believe there is always more of someone else’s money to spend, very happy.

Following the “plan” being divulged, the media was agog and trumpeted the “fact” that Obama had a plan, while Republicans had none.  Yep, the same old, pathetic playbook whereby the liberal media ignores the real facts in favor of made up ones.

Yet this week, did you know that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) tried to get the Senate to vote on Obama’s proposal.  Yep.  It’s true.  The attempt came in the form of an amendment attached to a Russian trade bill (H.R. 6156).

So, was there a vote?  Nope.  Harry Reid nixed that attempt and called it a “political stunt”.  Yes, Heaven forbid that a vote would actually be taken on his own party’s President’s proposal.  Logically, this means that Harry Reid believes the President’s proposal was a “political stunt” as well.  Thanks for admitting the truth it Harry, even if it is in a roundabout, convoluted manner.

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.  Democrats won’t even stand up and go on the record supporting or denouncing their own President’s plan.  Of course, this is the same Senate that has voted against budgets proposed by President Obama 99-0 when actually forced to do so.

All this is nothing new.  Harry Reid has been pulling this sort of stunt so many times over the past few years to protect Democrats from actually going on the record that it has basically turned the Senate into a three ring circus.  And it seems clear that Democrats are determined to force a jump come January.

That’s ok.  I’ll agree to that.  Only on one condition.  I get to push all the whiney liberals off first, along with all their precious entitlements doers like myself pay for.  That way, when my turn comes, I will have a nice pile of bodies to cushion my fall.  After all, why should someone like myself, a doer who understands the problem, suffer because of liberals too stupid and stubborn to take proper action? It just doesn’t seem “fair”, and aren’t’ liberals all about “fairness”?

Oh, that’s right, liberals believe that “fairness” is them getting what they want and being allowed to loot the treasury until they have gotten it.