Bydio

The Fix Is In

On August 2, Democrats fixed a House vote in order to overturn a motion that would prevent undocumented immigrants from receiving federal housing funds.  The House voted 215 to 213 to deny housing and employment to illegal immigrants on the annual agriculture spending bill.  The votes were counted, but the Speaker closed the vote with his gavel.  The Democrats then unilaterally and imperially overturned this result—defying 218 years of precedent.  The Speaker reopened the vote to ensure that the motion was then defeated by a vote of 212 to 216, disenfranchising the American people and paving the way for illegal immigrants to receive federal housing and employment benefits.

From Atlas Shrugs

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

From ynetnews.com (the source is Palestinian, so I question its veracity, but if true…):

The Palestinian news agency Maan, quoting a senior member of the Palestinian government, reported Wednesday that “ministers of the Hamas-led government recently held talks with European countries and with a delegation of the American Democratic Party.

The Palestinian official said that Hamas representatives held meeting in European countries and even succeeded in convincing the Europeans to accept the movement’s stance (click for their stance).

The Palestinian official expressed his hope that the recent talks would lead to positive developments, especially in light of “Hamas’ flexibility in its diplomatic stances.”

He refused to elaborate on the meeting and where it took place, claiming that Hamas is not interested in harming the Democrats’ chances to win the 2008 elections.

If this is true (and it’s not verified yet), then if you vote Democrat, you get “leaders” who work with Hamas.  Never.

C’mon, when you say something like this:

Increased spending inevitably means increased taxes. Thus, despite
President Bush’s much vaunted tax cuts, Americans actually pay more in
taxes today than they did during Bill Clinton’s last year in office.

you’re just asking for a smackdown.

Of course taxes increase when spending increases.  Everything you buy is taxed, retaxed and taxed again.  From manufacture to sale, raw materials, labor, import/export, transportation, everything that goes into a product has been taxed out the ass.

So saying that increased spending equals increased taxes is like saying water makes you wet.  At merely the 5% sales tax, if I spend $10, I’m taxed 50 cents, but if I spend $20, I’m taxed $1… fuck, I’m being taxed double because I spent double!

However, focusing on the tax cut to make your point is a dickhead move.  “Don’t give a tax cut because you’re just going to spend more in taxes anyway”… what kind of retarded argument is that?

From Lee Green at Honest Reporting, showing that Jimmy has Alzheimer’s… or he’s a history revisionist.  Pick whichever makes you feel better.  I’ve picked my side: