I know, I know... where have you been, Soloman?
Well, I've been rather busy, that's where I've been. Thank you for asking, all who have expressed concern from time to time.
My place of business right now is like the eye of a hurricane - there's disaster all around us, in the sense that the Obama economy is currently stagnating and will soon be getting worse (once the books shed all those census jobs) yet somehow, by the Grace of God, my workplace is the busiest we've been since the Progressive crash of March 2009.
My place of business does work that feeds the supply chain for the Military Industrial Complex, and for that right now I'm thankful because most of the rest of our business is in commercial aviation. And if you haven't noticed, the economy sucks and there aren't a lot of people taking vacations, so the need for everything from private jets to 767's has dwindled drastically.
Anyway, being the observant Cracker that I am, I couldn't help but notice all the hubbub recently about the Holder "Justice Department," as it relates to Arizona and the New Black Panthers.
Most of you probably know by now how Obama and Holder claimed they were all concerned about racial profiling... yet when they filed this lawsuit against Jan Brewer, me, and a few million other concerned Americans living in the Grand Canyon State, they decided to file their suit based on the concept that they didn't want a "patchwork of legislation from state to state."
Really? How's that working for you and your sanctuary city policy, San Fransisco? Los Angeles? New York City? Oh.... that's right... it's only politically expedient to sue the states that want to control illegal immigration... you know, like Rhode Island. Or maybe... maybe it's politics? Nah... couldn't be. We're in a "Post-racial era," after all...
And why on Earth should we expect The Associated Press to report on this situation honestly? I mean after all, if you understand the truth of the situation you know by now that it is not unique to Arizona to require immigrants to carry documentation. That's a Federal requirement, Mr. Eric Tucker of The AP. Check it.
Oh, never mind... we would be silly to expect consistency... or honesty.. from the media... like CBS News' Bob Schieffer, perhaps? What an ass that guy is. first, he blatantly asked the misguided and factually incorrect question about Arizona's law - I don't care how much O'Reilly wants to give him the benefit of the doubt. Then, he doesn't know a thing about the New Black Panther case?
Come on, buddy... get off the New York Times pipe and try a healthy dose of... oh, let's say any honest news source? And the vacation BS doesn't fly.. we heard that same load of crap from Charlie Gibson and the ACORN saga. I've been on "vacation" from my political "job" and I know all about both of these stories, and have heard both sides of the issues, because I actually make an effort to see what people from the left and from the right are saying.
And speaking of what people on the left are saying... how about that woman Shirley Sherrod from the NAALCP? Wow, did she really step in it, or what? If I may quote her directly:
"The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he took a long time talking but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing, but he had come to me for help. What he didn't know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was, I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him."
"I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn't give him the full force of what I could do."
"I did enough so that when he, I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that or the Georgia Department of Agriculture, and he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him."
[...]"So I took him to a white lawyer that had attended some of training that we had provided because Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farm. So I figured if I take him to one of them, that his own kind would take care of him."
Darned that Tea Party, and all the non-evidence of alleged "racism..." I think Andrew Breitbart is still offering $100K to the United Negro College Fund - and has been since March - if anyone can produce real evidence of Tea Party racism. Still. Waiting.
Well, aside from that, I'd just like to quickly ask if anyone else has noticed how the Obama administration always wants to have things paid for, unless of course it's things they want?
Like tax cuts, for example. There's a massive leftist talking point circulating right now that the Bush tax cuts are "for the wealthy" and that they "need to be paid for."
Someone needs to explain basic economics to leftists. Me? Sure, okay...
So listen, leftists, here's how it works. That rich guy getting the tax cut? Well, actually he's not "getting a tax cut," he's now awaiting a tax hike, since these tax rates have been in place for nearly a decade.
That rich guy... he's the guy you work for. If you take that tax cut away from him, he just might have to cut jobs, because essentially, something's gotta give, and it's likely he's not going to downsize his home or tell his children they can't attend college.
And here's a little more economy 101 for you, leftists. If you give a business owner a tax break, he's going to take that extra money and invest it in his business. In the process of doing this, he's likely to generate more income, which will increase the tax revenues generated for your precious government. That's right - more taxes by reducing taxes. It really works. Happened in the 1980's, happened during the first years of the Bush administration.
Not only that, but he's likely to hire a person, or two, or more - and they will have an income, from which your precious government will certainly take their share off the top, you betcha.
Now, if we were to do this the other way - the way Obama wants to do it - we will give away free money to the unemployed, without cutting spending anywhere else. This will simply put an extra burden on the entire economy. Nobody anywhere will be spending any more money. People will not work, especially in the states where unemployment benefits are nearly equal to the average salary of a blue collar worker.
To pay for this, you'll do one of two things - you'll tax the "rich," so that they can not invest in and grow their businesses, or you'll borrow from China, making future generations even more subservient to foreign interests that are not really interested in the concept of a future for the United States - unless a new nation called China West fits your concept of interested in a future for America.
See, leftists - it's the spending that's the issue, not the taxes. The more we spend, the less we have, and if our income is reduced and we continue to spend, the problem persists. Try it out in your home budget sometime. It really happens this way, we didn't dream it up while listening to Lawrence Welk and playing hopscotch, or whatever you think we square Conservatives do.
All in all, I'd say we're right on course for 1 1/2 years into the Barack Hussein Obama term. Those of us who were paying attention are not surprised at all to hear that his approval ratings are falling so drastically that even New Hampshire - a state Obama won in 2008 - now ranks in the bottom ten states for job approval.
I can see November from my house.. and it's looking good!