Rush Limbaugh, sluts, advertisers and the extreme left

Getting tired of hearing about this old dog?  How many advertisers has Limbaugh lost by now?  Around 32 if you listen to Media Matters.  They don't tell you how many he has picked up to fill those spots but that's ok!

But what is the REAL reason behind the attacks on Rush?

Here's my response to one of the many facebook posts by Media Matters:

That's ok, keep it up, we all know that it's only because it's Rush. Just as the recently uncovered emails of Media Matters have shown, he is a target no matter what he does. And that's ok too. Conservatives are just held to a higher standard! We all know that what the Maher/ Ed Schultz / Olberman crowd say is ok, even though they are just as disgusting, but we know extreme leftists just can't help it! A year from now no will remember this and Rush's advertisers will be back or replaced with companies that care about this country not being pushed over the financial cliff. Enjoy yourselves while you can.

And once again, I am hated by the denizens of MM!!!  Love it.  At least two other posters there have picked up on my stand and are repeating it everywhere.

My Apology to President Karzai

Give it 40 seconds, you'll be surprised.


Kira Davis !!!!

Obama's Road Signs

 On I-5 (88 miles south of Seattle ) The federal government is now petitioning to have these signs removed or Washington state will be denied additional monies for interstate highways.  The State of Washington replied, they will secede from the Union rather than be intimidated. These are a matter of free speech paid for by a private citizen. It seems the Obama government uses intimidation and ignores the first amendment when they want to silence someone. Northbound on I-5 near Chehalis , WA     (88 miles S of Seattle )

NY Times article on the world view of our Constitution

My answer to the NY times:

This article and many of the comments clearly show a lack of understanding and study on the intent and abuse of the constitution. "Most difficult to amend" I found especially distressful. It is not supposed to be easy. If it was, we would no longer be a republic but a democracy. Rule of law versus mob rule. At every change of administration, there would be changes.

There is nothing wrong with our constitution except that we have forgotten Franklin's words: "A republic ma'am, for as long as you can hold it". In other words, it is our fault for allowing our government representatives the power to abuse the constitution. It is meant to be a restriction of their power. We should fight to keep it so.

As far as the world no longer appreciating our constitution, that is pure garbage. As nations are realizing the damage their socialist, entitlement way of living has brought them to economic ruin, they look more and more longingly at our example.

We should reverse the 17th amendment immediately and work more to limit governmental powers.



.

Romney, McCain and the NDAA

How long have we been complaining about having to hold our noses when we voted for McCain in 2008?  How many times has it been said in countless blogs, posts on facebook, pundits on television, radio hosts, etc., that McCain was a lousy choice that the establishment Republicans shoved down our throats?

And what does Romney do?  Accept the endorsement of McCain!!!  That move right there I believe will sink his candidacy.  Not that he was my choice to begin with, but now he is definitely off the radar.

Now, about that National Defense Authorization Act.  Here is the pdf: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

Starting at page 359 is the part most people refer to, the "detaining of, for purposes of, in support of...etc etc etc".

HOWEVER, if you are still awake by the time you get to that page and continue to page 362, you will find the following:

APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS 15
AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.— 16
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require- 17
ment to detain a person in military custody under 18
this section does not extend to citizens of the United 19
States. 20
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require- 21
ment to detain a person in military custody under 22
this section does not extend to a lawful resident 23
alien of the United States on the basis of conduct 24
taking place within the United States, except to the
extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

However, if you are just visiting here or here illegally, you could just disappear....

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

Are you watching Iowa?

I think we can pretty much say that Bachmann is toast.  So will her supporters then turn to Santorum?

Huntsman will probably be gone also, not sure where his supporters would go.

What do you think?

What I find amazing is how the so-called conservative candidates, the media and many posters throughout the internet are pointing fingers at the liberal support coming out for Ron Paul.  So the libs can appreciate the constitutionality of a candidate more than conservatives?

That strikes me as the ultimate case of hypocrisy.

The Buffett Tax Mentality

We've all heard Warren Buffett complain (or brag) that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Now, I'm betting that his secretary is making at least $200,000. Which is enough to ensure she (or he, not to be sexist) can expect to pay even more if Obama's "Buffett Tax" goes into effect!

"Thanks boss!"

Maybe Buffet is feeling a tad bit guilty after his $5 billion investment in Goldman Sachs, I just hope he thanked the taxpayers for propping his investment up long enough for him to clear his multi-million dollar windfall.

But let's think about this "paying your fair share" approach our President and many others take in regards to pushing the wealth envy warfare:

A) What do you get for the taxes you pay? The government's responsibility is to protect us from attack, guard our borders. They do a lot more than that, but that is basically the federal governments constitutional responsibility.

B) What more would the rich get for paying more? Would they be protected more? Protecting the borders protects all of us.

So my question is, what would the rich get for their money if they paid more? They already pay more in dollars for the same benefits.

How is that fair? That is what they would think. Many are contemplating a "Going Galt" approach if they can. But many in the bullseye of this new tax, are small business owners who are stuck with big loans for buildings, equipment, possibly union contracts. They are stuck. But they have options.

So ask yourself this: have you ever worked for a poor person? Would you want to? Don't you think your boss is going to cut expenses SOMEWHERE to make up for this increase in taxes? There is no benefit to him/her to pay more to the Federal Government.

And then there's the regulation avalanche.... that's a discussion for another day.

Joyce Maurer
Libertarian Woman