It’s hard to believe that this woman was 3rd in position for the White House at one point.

People move to other states all the time to avoid taxes, actually. Her own state is often the one people choose to leave due to high taxes.

Screenshot, since it’s hard to believe this won’t be deleted eventually.

Nancy Pelos is an Idiot





CNN has it tied up at 49-49 with a high Democrat sample that probably doesn’t reflect reality. So, before the voting really begins tomorrow, here is my predicton for the 2012 election.

I fear that Romney will lose the close states (OH, PA, MN, CO, NV) and get very close to winning but not enough to put him over the top. While the polls may be biased, I just have a feeling he will not be pulling this one out. So that’s my prediction.

If Romney does win, I’ll celebrate (and watch MSNBC all night of course), but on 11/7, I’ll go back to hating him. He is/was marginally better than Obama, but not enough to make me happy he’s the new President. Maybe he’d surprise me, but I doubt it.

Make your own prediction at Hotair.

First we have this ad from Obama yesterday:

[embedplusvideo height="382" width="630" standard="" vars="ytid=o6G3nwhPuR4&width=630&height=382&start=&stop=&rs=w&hd=0&autoplay=0&react=1&chapters=&notes=" id="ep9101" /]

Which very closely reflects Putin’s ad a few years prior. Although, I must admit that – at least – Putin had the taste to put attractive women in his ad. So point Putin, I guess.

Now, Obama has decided to up the ante and channel Mao in putting a dunce cap on Romney.

And Obama’s version:

And, as we all know Obama’s “Forward” campaign theme is a popular one among socialists around the world. So I guess it shouldn’t surprise you where we are at with about ten days to go until election.

Vote accordingly.

I think it’s come time to call a spade a spade. The Daily Caller is awful. It’s almost as bad as listening or watching to Sean Hannity on a regular basis. And believe me, it pains to me to say this, as both are ideologically inline with me. But let me explain.

Back on 10/2/2012, Daily Caller promised a huge expose on Obama from a tape they had acquired. It’d be huge – red headlined on the Drudge Report and everything. So it drops later that night and it turns out to be an unedited tape from a known 2007 speech Obama had given. Daily Caller made the decision to highlight certain aspects of the speech – the accent he uses and acknowledging his connections to Reverend Wright. Because of this, the tape was widely ignored (and panned, even in much of conservative circles) as nothing new – which it wasn’t. Well, it wasn’t new for what Daily Caller had highlighted.

But they completely ignored the blow out point of this video – the part which hadn’t been seen elsewhere. And that was Obama’s railing against the Federal Government’s supposed decision to not waive the Stafford Act after Hurricane Katrina. He was reinforcing Kanye West’s point that Bush doesn’t care about black people – in an attempt to forment rage at Bush. In fact, the Stafford Act had been waived. And Obama had voted against this measure.

As Thomas Sowell writes:

Because, less than two weeks earlier, on May 24, 2007, the United States Senate had in fact voted 80-14 to waive the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans, as it had waived that requirement for New York and Florida. More federal money was spent rebuilding New Orleans than was spent in New York after 9/11 and in Florida after hurricane Andrew, combined.

Unlike Jeremiah Wright’s church, the U.S. Senate keeps a record of who was there on a given day. The Congressional Record for May 24, 2007 shows Senator Barack Obama present that day and voting on the bill that waived the Stafford Act requirement. Moreover, he was one of just 14 Senators who voted against — repeat, AGAINST — the legislation which included the waiver.

So. Obama both knew that the act had been waived. And he had voted against the waiver. So, he was lying to his audience to stir them up.

This was the only real news from the tape that the Daily Caller released. And it didn’t even register with them at the time of release. It took nearly a week for people to look into those remarks. A week too late for it to matter. So Daily Caller had a great scoop right in their grasp and fumbled it away.

So fast forward to today. Daily Caller has another “scoop” on Obama. That he had more connections with Wright than previously admitted to and he wanted his radical buddies put into positions of power. Earth shattering news? More like old news. This isn’t new, either. It just fits Obama’s pattern since he’s been in public life.

And here’s the problem. Daily Caller advertises all of these scoops as explosive, when they are really just duds or bad reporting. I get that the goal is to generate hits for their site, but these dud “scoops” are just going to make conservatives less likely to link to them in the future.

And this brings me to Sean Hannity. Hannity, in many conservatives’ estimation, is a GOP talking point robot much like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. He has had this same pattern. Market a huge scoop so that people will turn into his radio show or his Fox News show – then when people do, it turns into a dud. So what pull does Hannity have with the grass roots? None. And Daily Caller is following this same lead.

Which is probably why Hannity was in on the the 2007 tape revelation along with Daily Caller.

In a Salon interview, Camille Paglia reminds us how far Democrats have trotted off the reservation in their embrace of authoritarian policies that would put a smile on Chavez’s face.

She also offers some of the usual problems with Republicans, which I must confess, I have a problem with as well.  This in particular:

This Democratic administration has gone very deep into the weeds here in offering incentives to local police departments to acquire drones, which are a serious threat to our civil liberties and right to privacy — which liberals should be defending. We’re on our way toward a Big Brother society.

The fact that Republicans have embraced drones as well for domestic use is alarming, I must admit. I’d have hoped that, eventually, Republicans would embrace a Libertarian philosophy on these domestic issues, but I guess that road is longer than I thought. As I’ve said before, I’ve long believed that the perfect candidate is socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Social conservatism is just another way to let government control your actions and I think people should be free to make bad choices.

But at this point, Paglia pretty much launches into modern liberalism. I’ve been calling Democrats Socialists for years now; but I guess she’s chosen something more apt:

My third reason for going Green is the creeping totalitarianism of Obamacare,

I’m not sure if totalitarianism is the right word; authoritarian perhaps. Difference is negligible though. The idea is there – DC wants to control your life and wants to punish you when you disobey it. The catholic church is envious of such power.

If Democrats and their cohorts in the mainstream media had listened to me and begun criticizing the administration early on, there would have been ample time for a course correction and Obama would now be sailing into reelection.

I also tend to agree that if the media had been doing its job for the past 4 years, Obama would have had a better debate last week. He’d be hardened to tough criticism. But they’ve been soft and adaptable to worshiping him instead. Soviet Pravda would have thought their coverage of him was too soft.

And again, she launches into Obamacare.

The way liberals lay down flat to accept this massive, totalitarian takeover of the American medical system was shocking to me.

Do liberals forget that their movement started as a free speech an anti-war movement? “Don’t force us to go to war” (draft cards) has somehow evolved into “force us to buy stuff!” (Obamacare). If it weren’t for Republican stupidity and their inability to get over drug use, these people would be Republicans. They didn’t want the FBI/CIA poking into peoples’ private lives, but apparently the IRS doing so is just fine? Off the reservation, people. Way off.

I must tell you that the issue of personal freedom and resistance to a swollen totalitarian government has become primary on the Right.

And this is just a little bit sad, isn’t it? Liberals have decided they hate personal freedom and its consequences so they have to love totalitarian governments. This is probably why Obama congratulates Chavez on winning in Venezuela, while crapping on Israel.

Admittedly, she’s not voting for Romney. This is fine. I’m not really a Romney guy myself. I think he’s marginally better than Obama. He is the author of Romneycare, remember. Asshole. But he’s not a socialist. And Obama is. Romney 1 Obama 0.

This is a great video for the campaign season.

Thomas Peterffy grew up in socialist Hungary. Despite the fact that he could not speak English when he immigrated to the United States in 1956, Thomas fulfilled the American dream. With hard work and dedication, he started a business that today employs thousands of people. In the 1970s, Thomas bought a seat on the American Stock Exchange. He played a key role in developing the electronic trading of securities and is the founder of Interactive Brokers, an online discount brokerage firm with offices all over the world.

[embedplusvideo height="382" width="630" standard="" vars="ytid=UnX7TNFIELg&width=630&height=382&start=&stop=&rs=w&hd=0&autoplay=0&react=1&chapters=&notes=" id="ep8915" /]

I know some people don’t believe that we are in a war between freedom and socialism in this country; but many on the right do. And the left, over these past 4 years, has not really done much to quell such fears. They’ve happily embraced every government intrusion that came long. Things unthinkable 10 years ago, are happily bandied about up DC. Liberals wanting to suppress free speech (in the name of blasphemy, naturally) is the next thing, of course.

And with the SCOTUS about to decide if we can sell our own property, the end game may be closer than one would imagine.

A lot of talk about Big Bird this week and people on all side of the aisle seem to agree that it’s a pretty silly topic, especially for a campaign that really needs to be about big issues and not Sesame Street.

Romney’s point in the 10/3 debate was, of course, that if you want to cut the budget, you have to look at the big things -and- the small things. There are cuts to be made everywhere. As is typical, liberals cannot have a serious discussion so they decide to reductio ad absurdum the entire topic with Obama claiming that Romney will stand up to Sesame Street but not Wall Street, or something. This hastily created ad is, of course, laughed at by everyone. Krauthammer, as usual, had the best comment on this:

“This could be the worst ad I’ve ever seen. I make an appeal to people in Chicago, run this ad every night over and over again, spend all of your money and time on this. This is an ad that is trivial, it diminishes the presidency. It assumes, of course, that everybody wants to subsidize a company that, as we heard from Shannon [Bream] is a third of a billion dollar enterprise,” Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer said on “Special Report” tonight.

And for Obama to be talking about it — I love the way he said this is the biggest driver of the debt. The biggest driver of our debt, according to Obama himself, is Medicare, he’s done nothing on that. And it was the same rip on Medicare that Romney mentioned PBS as the way to say we’re going to go from the biggest expenditures to the most trivial expenditures because we have to go after everything when we have a deficit this large. And just as an additional thing for anybody to run an ad that reminds people of the worst debate that any president has ever had, I think is a big mistake and I hope they just keep running it until the end of time.

If Romney/Ryan were smart, they’d segue way this into the idea that if liberals cannot fathom cutting a few million dollars from a company who both does not need it and should not get it, then how can you expect them to make the actually difficult cuts we need to make to start balancing the budget. This is a pure winner for Romney.

This could also be expanded into the greater context of corporate welfare and crony capitalism. Which, again, is a winner for Romney/Ryan as they attempt to close corporate loopholes that, for the most part, favor large companies over smaller ones. No one likes welfare, especially corporate welfare. And running against it (and, then, following through!) would be a huge boost for small businesses around this country.

For conservatives, they need to learn a lesson here as well. PBS doesn’t need public funding. It does just fine without it. And that’s the point. The only point. Take this lesson and apply it to groups you may be ideologically opposed to (Planned Parenthood) by making a purely fiscal debate, rather than getting bogged down into the social issue behind it. Planned Parenthood does fine without government funding. It has even said in the past it does not even need it. So oblige them. Make the point that this is not about the services they offer, but about the idea of funding a private business. If PP believes what it does is so wonderful and loved, surely it can exist in the free marketplace without funding? If it thinks that it’s low cost or free clinics are the best thing ever, surely it can find a way to keep them open without federal dollars.

The same SCOTUS who thinks government can tell us what to buy; might now decide that government can tell us we cannot sell (via Instapundit) that which we bought.

You read that right. The government is about to decide if we need permission to sell stuff that we own.

The case stems from Supap Kirtsaeng’s college experience. A native of Thailand, Kirtsaeng came to America in 1997 to study at Cornell University. When he discovered that his textbooks, produced by Wiley, were substantially cheaper to buy in Thailand than they were in Ithaca, N.Y., he rallied his Thai relatives to buy the books and ship them to him in the United States.

He then sold them on eBay, making upward of $1.2 million, according to court documents.

If SCOTUS decides that we cannot sell what we own; then we really don’t own anything and we are just leasing items from the copyright holders.

To me, it’s amazing the basic stuff that we are fighting about every day right now; basic rights we’ve once assumed were obvious – are under assault from all directions. We have NYC wanting to impose blasphemy laws, liberals wanting to shut down free speech if it might offend someone, government thinking it can tell us what to purchase, and now possibly telling us what we can and cannot resell.

Scary times.