About Me

Name:The New THOMA$ REPORT
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Celebrities Unqualified to Endorse Politicians

I get so tired of hearing this actor or that television show host "endorsing" this candidate or the other or making some stupid comment on politics. (Barbara Streisand comes to mind, as the purveyor of the most stupid comments going). What makes them think that mere "celebrity" gives them special qualifications others don't have to "endorse" candidates? Just being famous is not a "unique qualification" to offer an endorsement of a political candidate. As Pat Sajak (a celebrity) says, "The idea that a top-ten television show or an Oscar translates into some sort of political wisdom doesn't make sense to me. Trust me, one's view of the world isn't any clearer from the back seat of a limo." And that's usually the most a big celebrity sees of the world. Yes, they have the right to "speak up," just as any citizen does. But we should put such "endorsements" in context, and take them for what they're worth, which is next to nothing. (Pat Sajak)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

CNN's Debate Fiasco

Have you ever noticed that when you go into the hospital and want to watch a news channel, only CNN is available at most hospitals? Fox is usually never offered, so you have to watch CNN or nothing. This is because the liberals have the hospitals convinced that CNN is "The Place" for true news and that Fox is biased. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the recent "Republican Debate" proved. What it was billed as, is a simple debate between Republican candidates. It was not. It was a "line-up" of Republicans answering questions provided by supporters of Democrat candidates. It could not have been more biased. Back in May, Democrat candidates "stiffed" an invitation to a debate sponsored by the Fox News  channel and the Republicans should have done the same with this biased "dog-and-Pony Show" or be more forceful in demanding terms and selecting the hosts. There was a lot riding on this debate, and it was CNN's very credibility, which they lost. But to those who pay attention to politics and public affairs, there was no credibility for CNN to lose. (L. Brent Bozell)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Boxer's Climate Bill A Disaster

It is simply "all economic pain for no climate gain," says Sen. Jim Inhofe. And that is the simple truth. If passed (which it probably will be, since Democrats are in the majority), it will devastate American families and cost us many jobs. "Numerous analyses have pegged the costs at trillions of dollars," which is too much, even if you "buy the bulldroppings" of AlGore and his henchmen that the current higher (in some places) temperatures are the result of man-made global warming instead of a normal, cyclical occurrence. Inhofe, who is best known in environmental circles for saying, "Global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," is one of the best-informed Senators in Congress on the global warming question. His knowledge far surpasses that of huckster AlGore (Who claims global warming is "settled science" and that those who oppose it are stupid), who has much of his money invested in places where people who buy his bulldroppings will spend their money. He continues to preach "conservation" while not conserving a whit himself. His fleet of SUVs (he says is owned by his wife, hee, hee.) is well known, as his huge, energy non-efficient home and his private aircraft, which he uses to fly around the globe (creating a lot of pollution) selling his swindle. If you buy his bulldroppings and allow such legislation to become law, don't holler if you go broke. (Sen. Jim Inhofe/Human Events)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Ol' Double Standard

”Do you remember a few short weeks ago when Hillary suggested that the real mover and shaker on civil rights was not MLK but LBJ, without whom MLK's efforts would have been for naught, essentially? Do you remember the Clintons' surrogate, Robert Johnson, smearing Barack Obama with allusions to his youthful drug experimentation? Liberals, including the mainstream dinosaur media, circled the wagons around her, insisting she couldn't possibly have intended racial slurs. Even many conservatives hastened to defend her against this charge. Had a Republican made a statement like Hillary's about the respective accomplishments of MLK (an African American) and LBJ on the heels of making a similar comparison between Obama (an African American) and herself, liberals would have savaged him and driven him out of the race. They would have invoked the irrebuttable liberal presumption that conservatives are racists. Just ask Trent Lott. With Democrats, the opposite presumption applies. Hillary couldn't possibly have intended a racial slur, nor could she have been guilty of racial insensitivity, because she is a liberal Democrat and liberal Democrats are enlightened and incapable of racism. You need look no further than the race-based assaults by liberal cartoonists against Condoleezza Rice to understand the magnitude of this double standard." According to Democrats (liberal socialists), only conservatives and Republicans CAN be racist. To think it of a Democrat, to them, is silly and stupid. They really think most of American believes that. And they're right, to a degree. Those who "pay no attention to politics" until just before an election usually do. Those of us who pay attention all the time, don't . (David Limbaugh)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Typically Liberal (Democrat/Socialist)

Ed Stein, ultra-liberal cartoonist for the Rocky Mountain News does a strip in which he intimates Republicans won't vote for anybody who is not white and male. How stupid is that? I'm about as close to being Republican as you can be without being one, and I'd vote for a black person or a woman if one came up who was worth his/her salt. I wish Condoleeza Rice would run. Then we'd get both a black and a woman. But she lacks certain elements that would appeal to a liberal. She's a conservative. The problem with Hillary and Obama is not sex or race, as Democrats want you to think. It's that both of them are unapologetic socialists, as are most of the other Democrat candidates. (Ed Stein)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

So Now He's Okay

The press savaged President Gerald Ford while he was in office, and mostly after he left office. Now that he's dead, they remember and report all the "GOOD" things he did, and they spent most of the day after his death lauding him. I guess that just proves the old adage, "There's nothing like dying to cleanse your record." I'm not saying either version of history is the truth. I'm just calling attention to the "selective memory" of the press. (Just common sense)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bill-Killers

One of the big problems in congress is congressmen and senators' ability to attach to previously approved for vote bills, other attachments that have nothing to do with the original bill and sometimes are "bill killers," forcing sometimes even the bill's sponsors to vote against the bill. This is a parliamentary trick that allows one member to thwart the wishes of the majority, simply by attaching something to a bill that nobody wants, thus killing the bill. There should be a law made, or a procedural rule made that disallows attachments that have no connection to the original bill, and if such attachments are allowed, the originator of the bill should have veto power over the attachment to his bill. (Just common sense)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bill Gates: "Capitalism Doesn't Work"

Who the hell does he think he's kidding? The man who made himself (and many others) rich by capitalism, and now "has his," is saying that capitalism doesn't work? Gimme a break! Gates was hurt badly by the liberals who decided to just TAKE the money he wasn't giving them in Washington, since he had nobody to "wine and dine" them, and was giving no money to their campaigns. Now he's trying to appease them. Since then, he has promised to give away all but 5% of his fortune (which still leaves him a LOT, according to those self-same liberals, who are never satisfied I wonder why they didn't try the same scam on Apple Computer who, while not as big or as profitable, made their owners billionaires, too. In pandering to liberals, Gates now wants business to spend more time and money fighting poverty. What does he think they're doing now? There's nothing better than profitable business dealings on a large scale to reduce poverty, period. China, which was, until it started "doing business" was a "basket case," is now the fourth largest economy in the world -- from CAPITALISM. Whatever system they force upon their citizens, they did not begin to grow economically until they started "doing business" with the rest of the world. "The Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal 2008 Index of Economic Freedom reveals how free-market economics is spreading like wildfire, while state-run socialism is on the decline. And it's no wonder why. The free-market countries are prospering mightily, while the least-free economies are mired in poverty." (Lawrence Kudlow/Human Events)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Taser Happy?

In Pittsburg, PA, the cops broke into a man's house without a warrant, and upon being informed this was his home and that he was not armed, hit him with a taser. Later they claimed he was guilty of several burglaries, but provided no proof. They took him to the hospital (after keeping him at police headquarters for a long time), but he got no medical help. After being released without charges (probably downtown, with no way home being offered) he went to another hospital, where he was treated for back and neck injuries, and nerve damage. "Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala Jr. determined that the officers did not commit a crime in their treatment of Hicks. The FBI also reviewed the case and determined Hicks' civil rights were not violated, a spokesman said." His civil rights were NOT violated? How do you NOT violate his civil rights when you invade his home and use a taser on him without cause, take him downtown and keep him in a cell for several hours, and not give him proper medical care while accusing him of all kinds of crimes without proof? I do agree, however, with the police chief when he said he's rather be "tasered" than shot. In the old days, they'd have just killed him out of hand and lied about it afterwards, as happens often in Denver, Colorado (I can count at least three instances in the last few years). (Observer-Reporter)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bush is a Good Thing

That doesn't mean he is "another Reagan. Far from it. Reagan would not have allowed the Border Patrol and the court system to send two Border Control agents to prison for ten years for doing their jobs to the best of their ability by refusing to pardon them. Reagan wouldn't have refused funding for stem-cell research that could find cures for things we had almost given up on, on the spurious claim of "sanctity of human life" while allowing people to murder their unborn children (which are much higher on the cycle) for their own convenience, rather than use condoms. But he did lower the tax rate and create the best economy this country has seen since Reagan did the same thing. His policies are responsible for the almost ZERO unemployment rate. He's the only politician to actually SEE the danger presented by the Islamic terrorists, much as Churchill first saw a similar danger in Adolph Hitler and Nazism and he's not afraid to do something about it. Every liberal politician now claiming to be "against the war in Iraq" were FOR it during the 14 months we waited for Saddam to do something, ANYTHING to make us believe it wasn't necessary, while Saddam ignored UN resolution after resolution. They also agreed with him that Saddam had WMDs, and he did. They were discovered long after Saddam's death, but the liberal press will not report it. He's no Ronald Reagan, but unfortunately, he's the next best thing we have right now. I hear people knocking him every day, and saying things that could not possibly be true about him, mostly from the ignorance of the uninformed who are "parroting" what they've heard their liberal friends say. I get tired of it. I don't know of another Republican now running that could replace him, and CERTAINLY not any of the Democrats. He has prevented another terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, even while other countries have suffered them. He has restored respect (among the intelligent) to the White House from the "trash" atmosphere that it had during the Clinton administration. I fear we're in for a rough time of it for a while and I hope I live long enough for the pendulum to swing back away from the socialism that's coming if a Democrat gets elected president, or if a Republican who is a "closet" socialist or a wuss does. (Just common sense)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Ignorant of Economics

Democrats think the way to prosperity is taking as much money away from citizens as possible and spending it on the unproductive of society. They hate "big business," Yet it is "big business" that creates all the good things in society by creating new wealth, from which we all benefit. Without "big business," we would have to go back to living like we did in the 1800s. Which, of course, would please the liberal environmental extremists (most of whom are Democrats) no end. That's their basic goal in life.(If "big business" is so bad, why did Wal-Mart have thousands of applicants for 700 jobs in one place?) That's why they always predictably oppose tax rate cuts, even though they've proven time and again that they stimulate the economy every time they've been tried, causing a net increase in the "tax take." Look at what Democrats DO, not what they SAY. Everything they propose offers "bread and circuses" to the unproductive of society at the expense of the productive. It's socialism, which is "picking the pockets of the productive for the benefit of the unproductive" while doing nothing to solve the problems (most of which were CAUSED by the policies of the liberals in power). (Just common sense)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McClain Plays "Fast and Loose" With the Truth

He enthusiastically promoted amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit even while illegal for illegal aliens, allowing terrorist murderers caught "in the act" of killing innocents (in foreign countries) the right to a trial in U. S. courts (something denied to Nazi and Japanese prisoners during WWII) and insisted they have full access to the intelligence reports used to prosecute them. Then he co-sponsored an unconstitutional free-speech crushing campaign finance law that silences everybody but incumbents. He opposed the Bush tax cuts, waterboarding terrorists to save American lives, and drilling in ANWR. He called the "Swiftboat ads" "dishonest and dishonorable" knowing they were truthful (Kerry keeps talking about proving them wrong, but so far, hasn't been able to). In 2003, he said "amnesty" must be a part of any immigration reform, using that old saw that "there are jobs Americans just won't do." (They'd be rushing to do them if employers paid enough) He DID support the war in Iraq, but then did everything he could to hinder its prosecution. He boasts of "being the only Republican presidential candidate who supported the surge." This is a blatant lie, since all Republicans EXCEPT McClain and Hegel supported it. He calls his denials of these actions "straight talk" while lying through his teeth. He was also part of the "Keating 5" scandal, but nobody's talking about that now. Wait until the general election if he gets nominated. (Ann Coulter)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Who ARE They?

The people the Democrats are swooning over are Hillary Clinton and Barak (Oops, 'scuse me!) Hussein Obama. But who ARE they? Everybody who doesn't have blinders on knows Hillary is a socialist. But what else do they know about her aside from that and that she was the cuckolded wife of a well-known "horn-dog?" Obama's record in his political life isn't talked about. You can find out about it if you LOOK, but only if you take the time and interest. He IS a Democrat, which suggests he will propose and support many socialistic laws -- laws that take money and property from those who EARN it and give it to those who DON'T. Democrats SAY people like me are just "hard-hearted" because we don't want Democrats (liberals) to spend OUR money on someone who will not work for their own money. But you'll notice liberals (Democrats) never spend their own money on others. It's always SOMEONE ELSE'S. Usually yours and mine. Personally, I would never vote for either of them. I don't vote for Democrats on principle. But before you waste a vote on either, do some independent research and find out just how much of YOUR money they'll steal. (Just common sense)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Not Being "Swiftboated"

John "Slippery" Kerry says Barak ("Scuse me") Obama is "being Swiftboated." He's not. "Being Swiftboated" is to be hurt by the truth being told about you, as did Kerry. Obama is being lied against by the Clinton Camp. You can always tell who worries the Clintons most because they lie about him the most. If the Clintons ever get back into the White House, by "hook or crook," you can look for them to steal more than the silverware. Think about it. Bill already is collecting his presidential salary for life as "retirement pay." Hillary is now eligible to collect her Senate salary for life the same way. If she gets elected president, she'll be eligible to collect president's pay for the rest of her life, too. Add all that together and include the millions they made on the books they wrote that nobody with any intelligence will read and they don't even need to steal, but they can't help themselves. They'll steal everything that isn't nailed down and get a claw hammer for that which is, whether or not they need it. Some people accuse me of "hating" the Clintons. I don't. I just have no use for the kind of people they are, especially not in the White House stealing from me. Some political pundits are still saying this convicted felon, known woman-chaser is a "good former president," in the face of the fact he is the second worst president in recent memory, right behind Jimmy Carter. (Newsmax)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Paper or Plastic?

That's a question made famous when environmentalists were successful in forcing grocery and other kinds of stores to offer a choice between paper bags, which required cutting down more trees, and plastic bags, which later were found to "live forever," multiplying in your basement when left alone overnight. Now some stores have realized their error in going along with the farce and are eliminating plastic bags, in favor of something they can sell,  "reusable" paper bags. Also recommended are canvas bags. They ignored us when we reminded them that trees were a renewable resource, and trees cut were able to be replaced by new growth which, in turn, helped the environment by causing natural photosynthesis to occur. But NO! They weren't listening to our truth. They "felt the power" of being able to dictate the use of plastic bags, which are not biodegradable and did not "break down" and disappear as paper bags did. They wanted to push their ideas onto the world, and did, for a time, until people began realizing they were wrong and their plastic bags were not the answer to their imaginary "pollution problems." Will they apologize? Not a chance. Liberals never apologize when their mistakes are realized. They just go on to the next dictate for the rest of us. Did you know there is more tree cover on Earth today than before the "environmental crazies" started conning us? They've already embarked on their plan to replace plastic bags with canvas bags. Which is better? Paper or plastic? "To make all the bags we use each year, it takes 14 million trees for paper and 12 million barrels of oil for plastic. The production of paper bags creates 70 percent more air pollution than plastic, but plastic bags create four times the solid waste -- enough to fill the Empire State Building two and a half times. And they can last up to a thousand years." The enviro-crazy's answer is simplistic. Paper or plastic. Or if that doesn't work, canvas. But both have drawbacks and paper is the better choice, even though their manufacturing process creates 70% more pollution than plastic. We don't yet know what's going to be found wrong about canvas bags, but you can bet they'll be ready with the next dictate when we do. (MSNBC)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234Next »