skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanual, has just announced an initiative that will provide the citizens of Chicago free junior college. Just keep your high school grades up, and you're entitled to two years of college, all free.
The mayor assumes that having lots of his citizens with two year community college Associate of Arts degrees, all picked up by the taxpayers, will entice new businesses to swarm into the city limits in droves, and snap up all of these educated folks to work for them in a New York minute.
Fat chance. Business owners are not stupid, Rahm. It only takes a few key strokes to determine what kind of taxes they would have to pay if their businesses relocated to Chicago, and those key strokes would spit out the dismal facts in a New York minute.
Chicago is one of the highest taxed business climates in the country, just outside of New York and San Francisco. They have a state sales tax of 7.25% tacked onto almost everything you need to buy in Chicago, one of the highest gasoline taxes in the country, an enormous property tax burden, a city sales tax of around 3% tacked onto the state sales tax, and Cook county gets its fingers into the till as well with a county tax to boot.
Nobody in his right mind is going to relocate to Chicago unless they get a monster sweetheart tax deal that exempts them from most of these taxes for a period of time. Otherwise, forget it.
No business worth its salt is going to move to Chicago, Rahm. The crime is out of control with one of the highest murder rates in the country, and the weather is just plain lousy, and add all those taxes to the mix, and this city is the last place on earth any business would relocate to.
And Rahm thinks giving away free college is the answer. Think again. All that will do is suck more money from taxpayers with nothing to show for it other than a bunch of associate of arts degree holders (who majored in diversity studies and performance arts with a concentration in the art of mime).
No wonder Chicago is about as broke as any city in the nation. Their leaders have absolutely no clue as to what attracts businesses to locate there. These leaders, including Rahm, are all Democrats and have been Democrats in power since the days of Al Capone. All Democrats know about running a government is to raise taxes and ruin a city in the long run. Just ask the good citizens of Detroit how things have worked out for them over the last 75 years of Democrat leadership.
It's only going to get worse in Chicago.
Did you ever wonder why people who support liberalism think that this flawed philosophy is good for us all?
Even when this philosophy has been demonstrably, historically proven to fail wherever it has been implemented? Throughout the history of mankind?
I am taken aback at how people can think this way all the time. I have met many well-off, relatively wealthy folks who are completely enamored with liberalism and its leaders. They themselves are not the benefactors of liberal politics which yield food stamps, welfare checks, Obama phones and rent controlled hovels.
These people are living large primarily because they worked at high paying jobs, saved their money that was not taxed away from them, invested it (and paid taxes yet again on any capital gains yielded from these investments). And these liberals don't give it a second thought of the tax rates the rest of us also put up with, and the rampant wasted spending that Congress winds up doing with this tidal wave of confiscated tax money.
These very same people also paid accountants to ensure that they were not paying one single dime more in taxes than is absolutely required by law, not a penny more.
And yet these very same people think that we all should be taxed even more to support the unfortunate among us. You know, the bums, alcoholics, drug addicts, and general lowlifes that don't have what they themselves enjoy in life.
According to these high living liberals, that's just not right. That's just not fair. And they will vote in as many liberals as they can that get up on the campaign stump and promise to make things right. Make things fair, it's only the decent thing to do, vote for me, vote for fairness.
Everyone should enjoy the finer things in life, they insist. Why should only a tiny minority of people dine on caviar and truffles, while the great majority eat out of dumpsters? Why should only a small minority of Americans live on the beach, drive Ferrari's and Bentley s and light their imported hand rolled cigars with $20 bills?
It's just not fair. So let's all make it fair. That is to say, they want their neighbors to pony up to make things fair for everyone and jack up their taxes, put limits on their freedoms and do it that way. No, no, these limousine liberals will not kick in a dime of their own to see to it that fairness reigns. Not on your life. That's the rest of us tax payer's responsibility, not theirs.
They think that to ensure fairness through out our society, we ALL need to kick in and help those less fortunate than they are. But don't pass that hat THEIR way, they have their yacht payments to deal with, you see. They have their elite club memberships to service, and their mansion groundskeepers to support.
These liberal phony baloney hypocrites think that they are doing their part to lessen the misery and unfairness in our society by voting in liberal politicians that will see to it that their neighbors cough up the trillions it will take to make things right.
Just don't darken their liberal doorstep with your collection plate, you just better take it across the street where the money should rightly come from; not them.
I will never understand these liberal people. And there are millions of 'em. Millions and millions of these generous liberals out there. Generous to a fault with the money of others.
As I was browsing through my favorite blogs, I stumbled across a link on "Geez"s blog written by Juan Williams ( THIS) pertaining to the Hollywood unflattering emails that were hacked and published recently.
The main beef I have with Juan, who is a relatively reasonable guy most of the time (for a liberal), is that on several occasions within his article, he clearly stated that conservatives were justified in feeling a sense of Schadenfreude - the joy felt in watching the misfortunes of others - at the blatant hypocrisy of these Hollywood moguls.
Nothing could be farther from the truth: no conservative worth his or her salt could possibly have this kind of reaction to these recent revelations on the thought processes present in the Hollywood elite.
The fact is that we all know this is how these guys think. It's nothing new, it's 'dog bites man,' and not the other way around. Why on earth would anyone get a feeling of joy at these Hollywood liberals squirming in their moment of lucidity?
I think Juan Williams' point is that since their raging hypocrisy is now on display, there will be accountability on their part to change, to atone for their sins, to become better people. Accordingly, the conservative cause will have gained merit, and the liberals will have lost some mojo because of this kerfuffle.
HA. Fat chance. None of that will happen. These liberal moguls will continue to fund liberal causes, produce liberal movies and do liberal things just like nothing happened. No accountability will reduce any of their activities, no face will have been lost for the liberal philosophy, life will go on exactly as it has before.
Why would conservatives be joyful over essentially nothing? Nobody is taking this little episode to heart, and changing things in their lives: there is absolutely no chance that some of the clueless out there are suddenly going to read the National Enquirer and declare: "did you read this about those Hollywood hypocrites, Marge? By golly, they are rotten to the bone saying those things, I think I will stop believing them and their liberal views. I am never voting for another liberal ever again, and I am now going to vote conservative, Marge. C'mon, Marge, let's go register as Republicans...."
Like that's going to happen? In a pig's eye. Juan couldn't be more wrong about this Schadenfreude on behalf of conservatives.
It's the same old page out of the same old play book: black Americans burn down their own town over some grievance (fill in the blank here), and think that their criminal actions will change America for the better.
And things don't change for the better. We've seen it again and again, same ol' same ol'. Watts and Detroit in the 1960's. Los Angeles after the Rodney King beating. Blacks burning down their own businesses, and blaming whites for everything that is wrong with their lives.
What are the results of this latest riot in Ferguson, MO? Is the criminal justice system now going to look the other way from black crime? Can blacks now steal and mug their way into the mainstream of American society without consequences?
The results of this riot in the short term are crystal clear: many black-owned businesses in Ferguson are gone, burned to the ground. Hundreds of families are now without a source of income. And the millions of white viewers around the country who watched these riots on TV are horrified that things could get like this in their country.
The results in the long term are the same as they have always been: white flight. Whites fearing black violence move their families away from predominantly black and urban areas, leaving the black community to fend for itself. The black community left behind is then hard pressed to make up for the lost business revenue, lost tax revenue and lost opportunities that have fled along with the fearful white Americans that have moved their families to safer grounds in the suburbs.
The results are exactly opposite of what the black activists who are calling for 'no justice, no peace': a viscous cycle of violence that plunge the black community into further chaos and despair.
I have no advice for the black community that it already doesn't know: their leaders are leading them down the path to ruin. And things are not going to change for the better any time soon.
Obama just threw down the gauntlet in front of the Republican's feet a mere two weeks after his party's historic landslide defeat at the national ballot box.
He will write new immigration legislation because the Republicans are dragging their feet on presenting him with a bill that he agrees with (like that is ever going to happen in our lifetime).
We'll see how the GOP takes this brazen violation of the Constitution. Sitting down? Maybe. They might fly off the handle (I'd like to see that, I don't think they have it in them).
In any event, all we have to do as a nation is survive just two more years somehow of Obama's lame duck years. Just two more. He has now poisoned the Democrat brand so thoroughly up to this point in his presidency, most Americans have had it up to their eyeballs in liberalism's failures.
There's just no way any Democrat can succeed in 2016 in sneaking into the Oval Office. Barry has so tainted every major Democrat's standing with Americans, they simply can't distance themselves far enough from Barry now, regardless of what they do or say.
How about Elizabeth (Pocahontas) Warren (D-Ma)? High cheek bones and all, she is more liberal than Barry, and that is saying something. Trust me, Kimosabe, this heap big liberal squaw will go-um down in heap big flames if the Dems have the nerve to nominate her, regardless of how much wampum she has in her war-teepee. Pocahontas Warren was touted as the first 'woman of color' appointed to her position at Harvard. Woman of color? Elizabeth Warren? She is arguably the whitest white gal east of the Mississippi. I have seen better tans on jars of mayonnaise than on this 'woman of color.' She's a complete and total (or as her people say, 'heap big') fraud and has no chance at attaining a position at the national level.
Jim Webb (D-Va) has recently dipped his toe in the presidential waters. He is so in bed with Barry philosophically, the GOP nominee in the 2016 race will lay a coat of Barry-paint on him so thick, it will take a battalion of chisel-bearing toadies to chip it off him.
And of course, there's Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-anywhere), who is joined at the hip with Barry. She was in charge when Benghazi blew up in their liberal faces, there isn't a chance in hell that she won't be tarred and feathered with that debacle during the 2016 campaign.
Americans are so sick and tired of this liberal crew and their devastating policies, even low info types like the Obama-phone lady in Cleveland have had enough.
All the GOP has to do is nominate somebody not named Bush and they are a shoe-in in 2016.
From the looks of this map, with red representing conservative land areas by county, and blue liberal, you would think the U.S. House of Representatives would consist of 400 Republicans, and 35 Democrats, right?
Nope. With a few out-lying areas of blue, such as most of New England, much (but not all) of the blue liberal land is high density population areas which vote Democrat, even in Republican wave elections.
Why is that? What is it about big cities that makes people vote against their own liberty and freedom? Why do they pull the Democrat handle in the booth straight down the line in these blue urban areas? Is it the water? Maybe.
But mostly its the concentration of population that allows Democrat ideologues to prosper by simple logistics: it's easier to deliver the free government cheese to one big huge warehouse in one big city, than deliver the free government cheese to thousands of tiny warehouses spread out over hundreds of thousands of square miles all over God's green earth (to borrow a Michael Medved phrase).
People who are susceptible to huge government promises to take care of them from cradle to grave typically have nothing: no skills, no cars, no education, no money, no land, no nothing, and they wind up in ghettos and slums packed on top of each other in big cities. And when a slick talking liberal politician shows up on the urban stump with a bullhorn promising to take the money from those that greedily hoard it for themselves and give it to the mobs, who do you think they vote for?
It's not rocket science. It's simple logistics. This also facilitates the famous 'get out the vote' efforts that Democrats excel in: just drive around the ghettos in Democrat buses, with signs on the side stating "Get on this bus, vote Democrat and get free cheese...and cigarettes". Hardly any money is spent on the diesel for the get out the vote buses, since they only have to drive for a few hours to pick up a couple of million low lifes and haul them to the polls.
Democrats know where their bread is buttered: high density population areas, where people and rats number in the millions. This is where they make their money.
And it clearly shows on the map.
With only a few days before the midterms, the Chicago airwaves are chock full of political ads, nearly all of them negative. I kind of miss the ads for Chevrolet, Minute Rice and Cialis. But those guys have been sidelined for the time being, there's negativity to be put out, courtesy of the big buck political machines, both Democrat and Republican.
And, of course, everyone knows that the Republican ads are all true, and the Democrat ads are all false and evil. It's clear for everyone to see. And I never write sarcastic posts. Never. Just ask me, I'll tell you that I don't.
This particular year the Democrats are panicked big time, as Obama's popularity, or lack thereof is creating a disaster for the country because Marxism, socialism and communism have never worked for any country, ever. Duh. But you can't tell this administration that uncomfortable fact. They continue plowing forward with Obama's stupid philosophy that is killing his party.
The political ads reflect Democrat panic, as they face a shellacking of Biblical proportions owing to the country's floundering over the last 6 years, and the public's newly found attention span that, unlike the past 6 years, now exceeds that of a common housefly. Not by much, mind you, but more than a few of these low information voters are starting to put 2 and 2 together and see that Obamism is a total and unmitigated failure up to this point.
Over Chicago airwaves, the words "Tea Party" and "Republican" are on constant parade, with the low, ominous cellos sounding the alarm of the upcoming evil that these two words mean for the average Chicago voter. And for good reason: the average Chicago voter is a black, welfare receiving, child support addicted, unemployed or labor union affiliated taker of tax payer funds.
And the Tea Party and the Republicans have articulated that all of these income redistribution policies of the Obama administration and the Democrat party in general have got to change.
Accordingly, the mooches and government largess recipients are being put on alert by big Democrat money and the message is clear: Tea Party and Republican forces will alter your comfortable way of life without being a productive member of society.
Let the cellos groan ominously here in Chicago (Barack Obama's feeding grounds): a change is afoot.
.jpg)
