Sunday, September 30, 2012

Probst/Stonier push polling in the 17th District against Benton/Olsen (Audio)

Slime. Pure slime.

Insanity: 1 million Ohioans using free phone program

Is it any wonder that empty-suited, anti-American racist bigot is even within 20 or Romney?  He's buying votes with OUR money!

I believe that if you smoke, drink, use drugs, have a cell phone, computer, internet or cable TV, you should be disqualified from Welfare or any welfare program like food stamps.  After all, why should my tax dollars go to subsidize your life style choices?

Obama supporters believe just the opposition, given that none of the above amounts to a disqualifying condition from receiving these tens of billions of dollars a year.

Who, for example, has seen the insanity of "Obama phone lady?"

Here's a video explaining the requirements to qualify for one of these phone rip offs.

I am, apparently, the only person in America who doesn't qualify for this theft.

Added to that is this report:

 Posted: 3:52 p.m. Friday, Aug. 17, 2012

1 million Ohioans using free phone program
Fees on phone bills pay for $1.5 billion national Lifeline program

A program that provides subsidized phone service to low-income individuals has nearly doubled in size in Ohio in the past year — now covering more than a million people. At the same time, federal officials say they’re reining in waste, fraud and abuse in the program.

The Federal Communications Commission announced recently that reforms have saved $43 million since January and are expected to save $200 million by year’s end. In Ohio, savings are expected to be $2.9 million a year.

The savings were realized in part because the government gave out fewer cellphones to ineligible people and took steps to avoid issuing duplicate phones.

But the size of the program in the state — and profits to the increasing number of cellphone companies involved — has exploded in recent months, according to a Dayton Daily News analysis of program data.

The program in Ohio cost $26.9 million in the first quarter of 2012, the most recent data available, versus $15.6 million in the same timeframe in 2011. Compared to the first quarter of 2011, the number of people in the program nearly doubled to more than a million.

Growth could cost everyone who owns a phone. The program is funded through the “Universal Service Fund” charge on phone bills — usually a dollar or two per bill — and the amount of the fee is determined by the cost of this and other programs.

The total for this rip off is $1.5 BILLION.

With a "B".  It's the kind of program leftists love, but to quote the local Pravda Izvestia, the arguments for it "are not persuasive."

Malkin: Obama administration to contractors: Hold off announcing layoffs until after the election and taxpayers will cover your fines and costs.

Nothing to see here: move along.
Obama administration to contractors: Hold off announcing layoffs until after the election and taxpayers will cover your fines and costs

By Doug Powers • September 29, 2012 04:36 PM

**Written by Doug Powers


According to the WARN Act, employers must provide 60 days notice to workers, labor union reps, local governments, etc., in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs that fall within the parameters of the Act.

Defense contractor layoffs due to sequestration cuts (that Obama is pictured above announcing in January of this year) are looming January 2, 2013. This means that federal law will require those companies to issue thousands of “you’re out of a job” notices mere days before the November election. If you’re the Obama administration this makes you more nervous than watching Joe Biden start to talk about Dunkin’ Donuts. What to do? Simple — ask the contractors to ignore the law and promise them that taxpayers will cover possible fines and extra costs associated with any subsequent non-compliance judgments:

I'm sure that this slimeball wants another law that he's sworn to uphold violated because, well, the leaves are turning and it's just beautiful outside.


Blog View: The dope-smoking editorial writer endorsing the pot initiative.

Considering how much those people smoke it before they write, this isn't surprising.
Clearly, they overdosed on the product before they, as they so often do, left out the most critical facts of all: passage of this crap is meaningless: it will STILL be "against the law," AND, if ever legalized, the projections of revenue are as much a fantasy as the revenue projections on jacking taxes on cigarettes and booze.
Guided by the utterly false hope that it will jack up state revenue, the leftist dope smoker who wrote this pap fails to understand that, by definition, this plant is a "weed." To avoid paying the taxes... guess what?
People will grow their own... and except for a boost in sales taxes on equipment, there will be, for all intents and purposes, ZERO income to the state... since... you guessed it: it first will STILL be "illegal," and second, if the fed ever changes the laws... people would grow... and sell... their own.

The revenue projections are a joke: these numbers would mean that the people of this state would have to buy enough of this crap to generate roughly $80.... each... every year.  That means every man, woman and child down to infant would have to buy enough of this to meet these numbers and folks?

Pot just ain't that popular.

So then the law enforcement focus changes to revenue enforcement... the modern equivalent of "revenuers."
Considering it's a waste of time to "legalize" this (It will be just as illegal once this passes as it is now unless federal law is changed, ergo: total waste of time.) and considering how much you want us all to turn in a bunch of brain-damaged zombies... of course those people want it "legalized."
And the first time somebody gets killed because one of there fellow brain damaged morons was ripped behind the wheel... the increasing evidence that getting blasted on this crap permanently damages brains... they can look back at this garbage endorsement with pride and know that they played a part in it.
Naturally, these common-sense positions "aren't persuasive."  Once those morons get the bit in their mouth, nothing under the sun can get them to either change course or to admit they screwed up... and no new information or evidence EVER gets you to reverse course on their agenda.
That's part of what makes their rag of lies through comission... and omission... so dangerous.  And we will be well off without their sort polluting us all.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

The best political ad I have ever seen.

I'm not a huge Allen West fan, though I was until he caved on his principles in a request to reenstate the despicable practice of earmarks.

That said, this is, perhaps, the most effective political ad I have EVER seen:

Blog Talk: The lie and self-delusion of Brancaccio

In a business... a hemisphere... a universe where what you are is, in reality, based entirely on what you DO as opposed to what you SAY, Lou Brancaccio is an out right, rather rank, liar.

How many times and in how many variations have we seen this lie from him?
"But anyone who follows my column knows I'm neither a conservative or a liberal."
*I* "follow his column," and I "KNOW" just the opposite.

Look, it's not that he's a fringe-left neo-communist who hates the will of the people when it comes to his agenda... that's his moronic privilege.

It's not that he will endorse a democrat in every open or competitive race.

It's not that except on tax issues (showing some of that enlightened self-interest that saw the B&O tax of newspapers go down while everyone else's went up) he supports every leftist ideology  known to politics in Washington.

It's that he lies about it.  And quite badly.

It's that the lying putz won't admit it.

I get that he keeps deluding himself... whether it's just for public consumption or that he actually believes his tripe, that he's no more a leftist then, say, Michael Heywood... current editor of the Clark County Democrat newsletter and former editorial page editor of the Columbian... who frequently made the same claim if memory serves.

But my conclusion is based on years of close observation.

When Brancaccio decides to trash someone, they inevitably have an "R" after their names.

Me... Van Nortwick... Benton... Boger... even in the past (at least until he became a democrat) Marc Boldt.  Brancaccio was even dense enough to endorse a democrat WHO HAD NEVER BOTHERED TO VOTE FOR THE ENTIRETY OF HER LIFE.

Hatred of most Republicans will do that to a guy.

There are rare exceptions.  Brancaccio seems to like our erstwhile Congresscoward, Jaime Herrera, because she, precisely like Marc Boldt. supports the CRC scam; the bridge replacement/excuse for loot rail, the permanent horrifically expensive tolls... the whole package.

Never mind that she lacks the guts to hold open town hall meetings.  Never mind that she's mirrored her worthless legislative record.

Nope.  Support the democratian agenda?  Then you're Lou's guy... or woman, in this case.

When a democrat screws up... Leave-it... Jacks... Moeller... Obama... Gregoire... how often does Brancaccio hold them up like a piƱata and beat the hell out of them?

How many times has his rag lied, distorted, exaggerated about the right and protected the left? 

Jim Jacks molested female staff in Olympia.  He would drunk dial some of them.

This is a fact.  Brancaccio knows it's a fact but because of the "lack of a paper trail," he's never reported it... or even investigated it.

The Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that, in effect, the entirety of the CRC is a scam, start to finish.

This is a fact.  But Brancaccio has never allowed it to be reported in his paper.

And that's the problem for someone who is a liar.  When they make a claim so false that it sickens the senses... it's difficult not to call him out.

For the past 15 years, the Columbian has been fighting allegations of crippled credibility... even acknowledged by former staff.
From: The Columbian Date: July 28, 1997 Author: MIKE FEINSILBER

The Columbian 07-28-1997

WASHINGTON -- Would you believe this? A lot of editors worry that you wouldn't -- that people are less willing these days to believe what they read in the newspapers. They fear that, for a variety of reasons, newspapers are suffering a crisis in credibility, losing the irreplaceable asset of believability. The press has a lot to worry about these days: stagnant circulation, too few young readers, the Internet's ...
Haven't seen any changes since then, have you?

And then, along comes Brancaccio, who uses his bully pulpit as a club to damage or destroy those wise enough to disagree with him... all Republicans... while using that same position to cover for his leftist buddies... all the while lying:
"But anyone who follows my column knows I'm neither a conservative or a liberal."

Friday, September 28, 2012

Haugen confirms opposition to the CRC: I will be voting for him.

Even as a holder of the seat of Executive Director for the Washington State Republican Party, I have long since learned to put party identification aside as a reason to vote for anyone.

So many ignore the principles of the Republican label; deliberately ignoring the platform and the GOP principles that are supposed to make us different then they are.

To me it's bizarre that on the single most important project in our region for decades... and the most expensive ever... the democrat candidate for congress is far more "Republican" then our questionably Republican congresswoman... who wants the current, paid-for bridge replaced; wants loot rail and wants us enslaved with tolls forever.

Haugen, who is violently opposed by slimeball State Representative Jim "My middle name is Hussein" Moeller (Communist - 49) likely disagrees with me on just about every other issue.  But in addition to his unmitigated opposition to this multi-billion dollar rip off, he's a former Regular Navy Officer, an Academy graduate and a retired Naval Aviator.

Unlike our current congresswoman, who never sacrificed a damned thing in the entirety of her empty political life; Haugen, like everyone else who loved their country enough to put on its uniform, fully understands what sacrifice means... in a way Jaime Herrera never will.

I doubt that Haugen will win.  But I still intend to vote for him as I use my most precious right... my vote... to protest the utter worthlessness of the person we're unfortunately saddled with as our Member of Congress.

For the record: Haugen still opposes the CRC

Blog: Political Beat
By Stevie Mathieu (Columbian Staff)

September 28, 2012

Democratic congressional candidate Jon Haugen has received some emails lately asking if he has changes his stance on the Columbia River Crossing -- from opposing the project, to supporting the project.

I'm not sure how this rumor got started. Hopefully, it wasn't because of The Columbian's story on Haugen recently being nominated by Washington State Democrats. In it, we reported that Haugen still opposes the CRC. (It got "started" because the issues page on his web site failed to mention the CRC at first.)

Apparently, some are speculating that because Haugen is now endorsed by state Democrats, then it must mean he changed his position on the CRC and now supports the $3.5 billion megaproject. His opposition to the plan to replace the Interstate 5 Bridge was one reason democrats previously voted down his nomination.  (actual cost is closer to $10 billion)

Since Democrats changed their minds about Haugen, Haugen must have changed his stance on the CRC, so the rumor goes.

Haugen emailed me today to clear things up:

"I did not change my position on the Columbia River Crossing for any endorsement," he wrote. "I have, do and will continue to oppose the Columbia River Crossing plan as a colossal waste of money."

Haugen is challenging U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Camas, this fall.

More trouble for Obama City: Romney WAYYYY overtakes Obama on terrorism.

As heavily weighted to democrats as these polls are, typically, when a poll of some substance points out the obvious, it's trouble for Obama City.

That a weighted-to-democrat poll like this one comes out with this kind of information... this is very bad... and obviously understated.

New poll: Romney overtakes Obama on terrorism

Posted By Uri Friedman  Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 12:49 PM   Share


The foreign-policy results of the new Bloomberg National Poll haven't gotten much attention yet, but the survey contains some bad news for the Obama campaign. According to the poll, Mitt Romney has a 48-42 advantage over Barack Obama on the question of which candidate would be tougher on terrorism. Romney, in other words, has encroached on one of Obama's signature strengths.

What makes this result so surprising is that the president has consistently trounced Romney when it comes to counterterrorism. A Fox News poll earlier this month found that 49 percent of respondents trusted Obama to do a better job than Romney in protecting the United States from terrorist attacks, compared with 41 percent who put their faith in the Republican candidate. The president had a 51-40 advantage on handling terrorism in an ABC News/Washington Post poll around the same time, and a 50-35 edge on carrying out the war on terror in an Ipsos/Reuters poll in August. The Democrats' rare national-security muscle was on full display at their convention, where speakers boasted about the administration's successful raid against Osama bin Laden and targeted killings of al Qaeda leaders.  

The Bloomberg poll contains other grim findings for Obama -- such as declining approval of the president's diplomacy and a neck-and-neck battle between Obama and Romney on flashpoint campaign issues such as energy independence, Chinese trade practices, relations with Israel, and Iran's nuclear program (61 percent of respondents were skeptical about Obama's pledge to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon). There are also bright spots for the president, like healthy skepticism about Romney's promise to designate China a currency manipulator and Obama's continued advantage over Romney on the question of which candidate would be better suited to handle a Mideast crisis.
Apparently, if you hit the voter in the head enough, even they will begin to notice.

And the other problem we've got is that when your president is an outright liar like this one, you really can't EVER believe him or take his word for it.

This is yet another blow.. ESPECIALLY when viewed through the democrat over-sampled prism that is the methodology of polls today.