Warren Goes Tactical Stupid

Some people thought Elizabeth Warren was more rationale? She nuked that myth.

The Hill
“Warren, Bullock spar over ‘no first use’ nuclear policy”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D) sparred Tuesday night over her proposed “no first use” policy on nuclear weapons during the Democratic debate.

In defending the proposed policy, Warren argued for diplomatic and economic solutions to conflict, saying “we should not be asking our military to take on jobs that do not have a military solution.”

But Bullock opposed that proposal, saying, “I don’t want to turn around and say, ‘Well, Detroit has to be gone before we would ever use that.’”

Warren is the lead sponsor of the Senate version of a bill that would make it U.S. policy not to use nuclear weapons first.

It has long been the policy of the United States that the country reserves the right to launch a preemptive nuclear strike.

Former President Obama reportedly weighed changing the policy before leaving office, but ultimately did not after advisers argued doing so could embolden adversaries.

What morons. Naturally Obama thought about it — read: really wanted to but was stopped by advisors. So no speed bumps for Elizabeth Warren though. She wants to grant a ‘privilege of first strike‘ to our enemies and enshrine it into national policy.

Gee, I wonder what we get in return? Dare I ask.

Saint Elizabeth Warren, I presume!

When Does the Media Love Christianity?

By: BillOReilly.com Staff | September 8, 2017

You probably know the answer to the above question. The media praises Christianity only when the Christian in question is a left-wing politician.

What brings this up is a long and nauseating piece in the Boston Globe which essentially beatified Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

“Elizabeth Warren’s Christian faith is deep and authentic,” gushed reporter Victoria McGrane, “and it informs her work as a senator.” How does McGrane or anyone else know whether anyone’s faith is “authentic?”

We were also assured that Senator Warren is never without her Bible, “a well-worn King James version she has had since the fourth grade.”

Can you imagine the Boston Globe or its former owner, the New York Times, writing that kind of puffery about a Republican? Mike Huckabee, for example, is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, but most of the swells at the Globe surely despise the man.

This drill is all very familiar and predictable: Religion as practiced by Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, and their fellow travelers on the left is uplifting and honorable. Religion as practiced by Ted Cruz, Robert Jeffress, and Sarah Palin is worthy of nothing but ridicule. …/

Read more https://www.billoreilly.com/b/When-Does-the-Media-Love-Christianity/-904489698118946721.html

Of course O’Reilly is spot on. I would just add that if she is devout, then it is in practicing at Bernie Sanders’ Tabernacle of Revolution. Why would they choose her sect over — or in place of — Bernie’s in 2020? They’ve already seen the fruits of his. Or maybe Bernie can be high priest and Elizabeth can be the high priestess on a ticket?

Media’s promotion of her faux Christian credentials would “require the willing suspension of disbelief” by the congregants. It’s serving the church of politics. That’s what they do.

Remember how media built up Obama’s Christian cred or how they promoted Hillary’s devout, deeply-rooted Christian beliefs? Planned Parenthood didn’t buy it. That’s what they do — hoping to divide Christians in preparation for slaughter at the ballot box.

However, immediately after election media and the candidates go back to sneering and mocking Christians and Christianity. But that is the very thing we were warned about.

Though in both Obama’s and Hillary’s case, their mentors were theologians of Marx. A dead giveaway. Yet the media got away with selling it as ‘pure as the driven wool.’

Obama studied under Rev Wright’s Liberation (Marxist) Theology, etc. Hillary’s youth minister sent her down the path of socialist activism. Warren brandishes a King James version while claiming to be a nasty, nasty woman of the occupy movement. Money changers anyone? All swear to a blood pact on the altar of abortion. Christian leaders?

So why not? These days progressives, or whatever they want to call themselves, operate more like a religious cult. It is no wonder the Left would apply many of their policies as, and with, the piety of a religious sect now.


References: Matthew 7:15, Matthew 24:11, Luke 21:8, 2 Thessalonians 2:3

Part 2: Liberation Theology and politics

Identity Politics

What lesson did we learn from the left last week? That it is good to imitate a woman but bad to imitate being black. It’s the latest cultural snafu and hypocrisy of the left.

You get a courage award for changing your identity to a female but you get attacked for appropriating black culture. You may appropriate the female gender all you want. Do not borrow any black culture though. And rule makers, or the political class, get to decide what “culture” entails. Do not cross the lines.

Abc reports: “Spokane NAACP Chapter President ‘Grew Up White,’ Says Her Brother
Rachael Dolezal claims she is black and identifies as such, despite family’s denials.

She appears to have broken the rules setting off national outrage. But Bruce Jenner gets the national courage award for identifying as a woman. I’m sure they’ll tell him there is great pride in that, not so for identifying as black. She’s probably a leftist too. Elizabeth Warren self-identified as Native American as a college professor, due to pronounced cheekbones, and the left didn’t get disturbed by it.

There was outrage a while back at a teenage girl using a weave hairstyle as “appropriating black culture.” An egregious offense. However, if people marry the other cultural identity they are celebrated, but presumably they still must keep their cultural identities separate. That must be somewhere in the wedding vows and prenuptial details.

There might be enough confusion about this so colleges probably need courses if they don’t already have them, so young people learn there are limitations which must not be crossed or challenged. All this is important because one’s political status is determined by identity. You must stay within the boundaries of that or there will be big trouble for you.

So if you are any one of certain subidentities you must be a Democrat. For instance, if you are a union member you vote Democrat; if you are Hispanic you vote Democrat; if you are black you vote Democrat; if you are female you should vote Democrat or be a traitor to your sexual organs; if you are a cross-dresser or LGBTQ you must vote Democrat. Every group is an identity and you are known only by that identity. So I think they need to have course curriculum teaching it to eliminate confusion.

If you cross any identity taboos or boundaries there will be swift, severe penalties. And you may never return to your ‘normal’ identity status after misidentifying or appropriating culture. Naiveté or ignorance is no excuse.

You may change your identity to female, but you may not change your cultural identity. You are courageous for the first and condemned for the second. You may use certain banned words if you are of the proper identity. If not, you will be marked for life as a racist bigot. No appeals and nothing you do or say can rehabilitate your identity image. Once branded a racist, you may never change that identity. See why they need a course?

It’s all about identity. Let’s see how long it takes the left to brand her family racists for pointing it out.

Reference: Wikipedia says:

Cultural appropriation is the adoption of elements of one culture by members of a different cultural group, especially if the adoption is of an oppressed people’s cultural elements by members of the dominant culture.

America is a melting pot society, but don’t cross cultural and political boundaries of the Left. Do not appropriate any subculture wrongly, even unconsciously. The right of justice in such matters is reserved for the left. It only follows that political party and voting follow the same rules.

PS: pride in any identity is encouraged unless you are white European or Caucasian — which is a terrible identity.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary is History

The bad news is what Hillary said. The good news is it should finish her presidential campaign.

Hillary Clinton: ‘Smart power’ includes ‘showing respect, even for one’s enemies’

Washington Post

“This is what we call smart power — using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security, leaving no one on the sidelines, showing respect, even for one’s enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view, helping to define the problems, determine the solutions,” she continued. “That is what we believe in the 21st century will change — change the prospects for peace.”

Toward the broader theme of women in leadership roles:

“We should do what we can to support those women who truly are on the front lines in protecting their communities against this extremist threat from ISIS and others,” she said.

In a rational world, the headline on every paper would be “Hillary ends her White House bid.” That won’t be.

Wearing a blue outfit doing her best Elizabeth Warren impression. This, instead, is one more step in her run: to cut Elizabeth Warren off from stealing the uber-left limelight. Does it work? Well, rationality was never their hallmark as is the case with national press.

I’m still waiting for her to show a little empathy to the “vast right-wing conspiracy” but won’t hold my breath. Where’s the love?

Which is worse, the comment itself or labeling it “smart power” policy? It has echoes of Obama’s Strasbourg speech that America has “shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward its allies. Attacking our allies is probably next after empathizing with our enemies.

Here’s hoping there is not much empathy for Hillary.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary sets the tone for her run…. wind her up

The First Lady of Misspeak has done it again. Hillary Clinton put her whole leg in her mouth pandering to a crowd of Dem supporters in the liberal state of Massachusetts.

Except it was not a slip or an error. It was very much planned and intentional. She was only following Obama’s lead, who followed Elizabeth Warren’s remarks. Ah, there is never really much new with Democrats. And there is usually a bread trail.

You see, when – not if – she declares she is running, she will have to head off the attack from the left flank of the Demmitude Party. The likes of Warren in particular. But Warren has been honing that Marxist message for years now. Hillary has some katching up to do. (sorry, I have a propensity for misspelling words) New, anything new about Hillary?

Obama had a penchant for lifting popular words and messages from people, too. It runs in the Dem family. And just like Obama, don’t tell her words don’t matter. Wait, please tell her they don’t.

Washington — [Updated 2:40 p.m.] Hillary Rodham Clinton’s recent comment about trickle-down economics has launched a war of spin – and an effort Monday by Mrs. Clinton to correct herself.

First, here’s what the likely 2016 presidential candidate said at a campaign event last Friday for Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts Democratic gubernatorial candidate:

“Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” former Secretary of State Clinton said in Boston. “You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly. One of the things my husband says when people say, ‘What did you bring to Washington?’ He says, ‘I brought arithmetic.’ ”

On Monday she revised and extended her remarks to say:

“Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in America and workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up.… Not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”

Except that is not what she said — no matter how long she says she’s been saying it. She clearly said in Elizabethian speak: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” And that was only shorthand for ‘businesses do not create jobs.’ The second part of her statement was about trickle down economics.

But in Clinton’s and Warren’s, and Obama’s formula, it is all very much trickle down economics from Big-Government. Why doesn’t everyone just say that?

If we learned one thing from Hillary, it was that everything is trickle down with her, including blame for the terrorist attack on Benghazi. If she is so adamant about her non-trickle down approach, why doesn’t she defend it instead of back peddling. Does she not really believe in Marxism as she suggests?

She did not have quite the delivery of Queen Elizabeth Warren:

Here we go again… haven’t we seen this movie before?

Take it, Hillary….

Reference: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2014/1027/Hillary-Clinton-says-businesses-don-t-create-jobs.-Uh-oh.-video

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s War of Women

This means Warren: Obama backs challenger to Hillary

By Edward Klein July 6, 2014 | NY Post

President Obama has quietly promised Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren complete support if she runs for president — a stinging rebuke to his nemesis Hillary Clinton, sources tell me.

Publicly, Obama has remained noncommittal on the 2016 race, but privately he worries that Clinton would undo and undermine many of his policies. There’s also a personal animosity, especially with Bill Clinton, that dates from their tough race six years ago.

A former Harvard law professor and administration aide, Warren would energize the left wing of the Democrat Party just as Obama did against Clinton in 2008.

Thanks to her outspoken stand against big banks and the top 1 percent, Warren is the darling of progressives. She won her Senate seat thanks to millions of dollars in donations from outside Massachusetts, including from rich environmentalists and Hollywood celebrities. …/

More http://nypost.com/2014/07/06/this-means-warren-obama-backs-challenger-to-hillary/

The war is on it seems. What else can be said? If it means it takes another slap at Bill Clinton while dissing Hillary, that’s just another reason to support her. Is Valerie Jarrett now in charge of the Democrat Party? She seems to be the self-appointed Czar.

I heard MSNBC applaud Warren campaigning for Tennant in West Virginia. They took issue that W Va, who once supported Dukakis, now favors Republicans. Yes, they believe she is the one to rectify that situation. The people that declared war on energy want to win back W. Virginia. Can even Democrats follow these “bob and weave” politics?

Their reasons, according to Wa Po:

1. Tennant needs every Democratic base voter to turn out
2. Tennant needs the money. (only had 1.5 mil on hand)
3. Warren’s economic populist message is a nice fit for the state. Yes, Warren is more liberal than the average West Virginian. And, her views on coal are not in line with most residents in the state. But, on economic inequality — the issue with which she is most closely associated — Warren is likely standing right with most West Virginians. (West Virginia was the third poorest state in 2013.) “Our job is to fight for the families of America,” Warren said at the Tennant event. “Stitch up the tax loopholes so that millionaires and billionaires pay at the same tax rate as the people in this room.” That’s a message that can work in West Virginia.
4. The event was in the Panhandle. West Virginia has moved heavily toward Republicans over the past decade or so. But, the entire state is not solidly Republican. The eastern Panhandle, which includes the town of Shepherdstown where the event was held, probably has more in common with Washington, D.C. than Charleston, West Virginia.

“None of the above means Tennant is going to win. She’s a long shot. And long shots need to take risks. This one makes political sense,” says Chris Cillizza.


There you have it, the rosy optimism for why Warren was a great fit for Virginia voters. Just the one to speak to them. Well, that percentage on the extreme Eastern border that leans Liberal anyway. What’s not to like? And she’s their presidential poster-child?

Don’t laugh, they are serious on both. Forget that Dems want to nuke the coal and energy industries and their extreme anti-gun, anti-second amendment, abortion ideology that comes with them. Insulting. One can only hope it’s not “change they believe in”.

RightRing | Bullright

Star-dazed Democrats, polling their u_sual

According to latest Quinnipiac poll, the Democrats primary looked like this.

2b. (If Democrat or Democratic Leaner) If the Democratic primary for President were being held today, and the candidates were: Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo, Elizabeth Warren, Martin O’Malley, Howard Dean and Brian Schweitzer, for whom would you vote?
Tot– Men –Wom
Clinton————– 66% –61%– 70%
Biden ——————8 — 9  —-  7
Cuomo —————- 3  —   4  —   1
Warren ————— 7   —  8  —   6
O’Malley ————–  1 –
Dean ——————– 1  —   1  —   1
Schweitzer ————- 1  —   1  —   1
SMONE ELSE(VOL) —-1 —   1  —   1
WLDN’T VOTE(VOL)  —– 1  —   2  —   1
DK/NA———————- 12   —  12  —   12

All on board the Hillary/Estrogen Express. Biden who? Who needs a primary?
Jill Biden probably polls better than Joe. How about that Elizabeth Warren?

Related https://rightring.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/survey-says/

digging deeper: Condescending Obama vs Business Owners

The Virtue of Elite Arrogance — part II

He said, ““If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”
Remember how “if you build it they will come”? Not anymore, apparently.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Rather odd for a guy who uses the “I” pronoun so much. And a guy who tells people to keep believing in him, faithfully. If that is the case, then we should start giving out credit[balme] for Obama, since he thinks he has been that successful. You didn’t do that, Obama, someone else did. White guilt put you where you are, now how about some applause for white guilt, Barry? Pay some homage to white guilt, affirmative action, and otherwise stupid people.

For instance, how many times does he credit his white grandparents with his success? He mentioned them in his own condescending way, the way he talked about his grandmother in none other than his race lecture. Or if he is so honest, then why not release the college records and show us who really assisted Barry Soetoro? He talks about those scholarships that made it all possible.
Now “Show us the money!”

When was the last time he said he got where he is because of his white grandparents? Pay them some real credit, publicly. That is one part; but when did he give government credit for his success? Or that kingmaker in the Illinois Senate where he learned how to vote “present” to evade accountability? The guy he asked how he could be made into a presidential candidate? When did he give thanks to government and bureaucrats for his accomplishments? And how about all those blind voters? The serfs he wants to rule over. He owes them, “bigtime”. When did he say “I didn’t do this myself” and mean it? I don’t mean his Broadway act, narcissist that he is. He hasn’t even told us about the influential, well-connected Frank Marshall Davis either.The name he can’t quite mention. He won’t give a shout out to Frank Marshall Davis for getting him here. How about a big cheer to Rev Wright for fine tuning his Marxist views, and for borrowing parts of sermons? Don’t forget Deval Patrick for lending him some awsome words, or a speech, at just the right time.

But his central theme is the infrastructure, how government made success possible. Just because someone uses the Internet in their business does not mean Internet is responsible for their business. He seems confused. He is awfully dismissive of individual efforts.

On the other hand, if he credits big-government for individual success, then lets look at what all they really do, you know, “to help”. All those applications, regulations, inspections, forms, and ever-growing bureaucracy that, well, makes and keeps you successful. What about that? I mean all the hours and inconvenience of complying with government just to make and keep you legal. Is he talking about those advantages to businesses? More like disadvantages and disincentives: When government bans one product you use so you have to find a replacement. When new regulations mean you must have 2 more people in your office just to handle the extra paperwork. When you have to collect and deliver the taxes to the government on goods you market. What about those expenses and burdens of compliance? What about when, through government taxes and regulation increases, you are forced to raise your prices and squeeze your profit margin smaller and smaller to make it work? What about when that profit margin becomes so slim you cannot operate and have to cut employees to make it? What about when big-government decides to take an interest in your sector and picks winners and losers? Or when they incentivize or subsidize a few of your competitors while you must compete with them? Or when government changes regs in the middle of the process and literally tells you, “You can’t build that here”? (then fines you accordingly) That’s just a few of the benefits government can do for you. What can Big Bro do for you? So they want people to be thankful for those – some call them disadvantages.

They say bridges and roads and governments of all type are the reason you are in business – A, and the reason you are successful – B.

Only if you were schooled in the, Marxism, Alynski radicalism, community organizing, big-government utopianism does it all make perfect sense. What does it mean to a guy who sought out Marxist professors and all that stuff? And remember those helpful “composites”. Maybe he should say, “Thanks comrade Marxists, I owe you. I’ll pay it forward to you all.” What about all those choices he made? Government was there, behind it all. Ones that brought him to a point where, as president, he could give a press conference to call a local police department stupid.

Right, he was not really talking about the help of others, community et al, he was referring to big-government. More specifically big government. So we know. But can he admit that these are expensenses a business has to digest and the help comes with strings? Can he admit the problems, hassles, and resources that it costs to deal with government? Yet it is a one-way street to him; government is the friend and partner, never opponent or competitor. Never mind the truth. What about all the highway taxes people already pay using the roads. Businesses are paying those too. I think he has a problem in the accounting department. There are two sides of the ledger, not one.

Individual initiative drives success. We spend tons of the peoples money on unionized public employees and look at all the fraud and abuse we see. Businesses and people must be thankful for that — like showing preference to a business if it is a union shop. Then politicians make promises to their union organizers to get elected and reelected. How about the pols admitting that help? How the purchase of votes is responsible for their successful career? (using our money) Oh, that is all part of that system Liberals are celebrating here in their defense of big government. Stick it all under one umbrella and say “hoorah for government”. Next, with ObamaCare and evolving national healthcare, we will be told to thank government for life itself. But, on the contrary, I’m sure it would not take credit for deaths though.

I gave up on the rosy optimism that liberals would see the error in a current position they take, as the truth oozes out around them. Regardless, they dig their ideological heels in and will not see or admit it. Want proof of this look at the campaign. Pollster Frank Luntz noted if supporters see a real negative ad about Obama or dems they tune it out. They don’t want to hear it or see it. Look on the web, it’s the same way. If something is very critical of Obamessiah on a popular site, they attack anyone who agrees and call the author names. Of course, when it was Bush that same critical sentiment was celebrated and echoed from all the ivory towers, from media to academia to Main Street. It was “in”, and don’t dare hold it back. Shout it Loud and Proud! Now they suggest no person should be allowed to criticize Obama. It is not appropriate. A comedian could have made a name and career criticizing Bush; while one could end his/her career by picking on Obama. That is taboo.

Round and round they go

When you point out the double standard, 180-degree flip-flop, they won’t even admit the obvious fact. But worse than that, they project their own political behavior onto the Right, and make all kinds of irrational equivications. But they will not come to terms with what they are doing or defending, or the consequences of it. I always say at least Nixon resigned. When Libs are under attack they double down, even when cornered. If you expect to prove their hypocrisy to them you are kidding yourself. This is why anymore I don’t bother. They aren’t listening anyway.

And what is amusing is how those words “you didn’t build that” are the same as Elizibeth Warren’s feverish mantra. More borrowed words from another politician. She did not get much flack about them. Adding further irony is that even Obama’s words would not be as powerful if not for the vast number of sycophants that repeat them and push his arguments. So he can liberally attack Romney about outsourcing and never mind his own. Or he can attack Romney on records or taxes and never mind his hidden records. “What are YOU hiding, Obama?” And no one in media seems to care the pot is calling the skillet black.

A hat tip to the loyal media and his minions. He’s lucky in that regard, they take every word he says and run with them – hypocrisy and all. Truth doesn’t matter when you hear the machinations of the left spouted from every other rooftop and in the airwaves 24/7. With this all out assault on any opposition, no one cares to hear the truth. Barry said it so it is. So Obama has had a lot of help. But rather than “build”… it is systematic destruction.

Postscript comment:
I should apologize for writing about this again except that there are numerous levels on which to take issue with his remarks. Imagine if he directed a statement like that toward unions, like the ironworkers, and their union bosses. No, he wouldn’t but that is not the point. Imagine Obama telling them you didn’t build that. Lets say it might not be recieved very well. Too bad he did not make that point to Solyndra before relieving their liability to the government kitty. Again, nope.


Ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obamas-you-didnt-build-that-problem/2012/07/18/gJQAJxyotW_blog.html

Prior posts:

As always, your comments and Rants, Rhymes, or Reason are welcome.

Oh no you didn’t

You didn’t build that!

I get a kick out of the argument over what Obama said. Obama and the left say it is ridiculous, that’s not what he meant. Okay, what about it? They said he was talking about roads and bridges. So he meant, “didn’t build the roads and bridges”. That is their point. But does it really matter? They both mean the same thing. One is a more subtle way of saying the same thing. Both statements lead to the same destination. And there is no question about the destination: that “you didn’t get there on your own” and no one really does.

So what difference does it make if he meant “build that” business or referred to roads and bridges, when either one would be the same argument? If they have their revision, it’s the same argument. And when you hear the whole context, there is no doubt what he was talking about. He was talking about the same thing. It clearly means you didn’t build that business by yourself, that you had help, or that you could not have built it yourself.

What if the owner did not build the roads and bridges, they still built a business. Must they have built the whole infrastructure in order to say they built their business? Be serious. Businesses never claimed o have built all the roads and bridges themselves. But Obama, like Elizabeth Warren, was knocking business owners and entrepreneurs down a few pegs. To humiliate them that their success was contingent on the rest of the country and the government, or others. The point: to shame them into feeling they owe government and telling them that their businesses are dependent on government and others. But did government or the rest of the country share in the risk of that business? Did government put in the hours and sweat? Obviously not.

It seems to be a one-way street with Liberal progs. They don’t want to admit that government reaps rewards of individual’s hard work. Nor admit that government has a dependency on individual businesses. (some feel it is a parasite feeding on the fruits of their work) Society benefits from them. But so-called “progressives” want to dismiss that part of the two-way “highway”. They opened this can of worms to send a message to business owners out there, to make businesses and owners appreciate government. “Government made your success possible, now pay up.”

But don’t you think government ought to appreciate the businesses and entrepreneurs a little? Show some love and appreciation. Don’t kick them in the teeth and then try to tell them all government did to help them. So everyone should rally around singing praises to government? Oh, forget the obstacles it throws up and roadblocks it constructs. And it is not like government – big as it is – can do everything on its own. It doesn’t fix your car, manufacture a refrigerator for you, or set your broken bone, or perform surgery on you. Uncle Sam doesn’t do it all by himself. (I know that is hard for Liberals to accept) That rebar they put in the road or bridge came from somewhere. The government doesn’t make the asphalt in the White House, and it doesn’t make concrete on the South Lawn. It doesn’t create or supply the inventory. It didn’t make the armor for its own vehicles. The money comes from taxpayers and those trucks pay highway and road taxes. People buy muni bonds.

We are only arguing about it because the left wants to create the illusion that they and Obama did not mean what they clearly said, even though you are supposed to get the intended message – loud and clear. Message received. And the Left certainly knows what they are saying and what they meant. Instead, they’d rather deny that is the message while saying that the message is true. Got it?

And now Obama runs an ad to say his words were taken out of context. The meaning and context are the same either way.

As always, your comments and Rants, Rhymes, or Reason are welcome.