The Liberals tried and failed to recall my governor, Scott Walker. They thought they could win but what they didn't realize is that even Democrat voters knew we needed to reign in the greed of the public sector unions. No doubt that quite a few teachers, firefighters and cops voted for Walker, knowing it would cost them but willing to give up what they knew they didn't deserve. Certainly not when the rest of us with private sector jobs are still suffering under the Obama economy.
With Obama, however, there is a stark contrast. Obama, unlike Walker, isn't doing what is necessary to get the country back on the right fiscal path. Instead he spends our money to buy votes and campaign contributions for himself and his fellow Democrats.
The corruption of this administration is becoming much more clear in it's second term, what with the lies and cover up concerning Benghazi, using the IRS to target political opponents, and the tyrannical seizing of records from reporters. There are many more scandals of course (listed at the beginning of my previous post) but it is these three that are generating some serious talk of impeachment.
If only we could recall him, I think many Americans who voted for Obama the last time out would not just go with whatever candidate the Democrats put up in Obama's place (Biden or Hillary) - but would acknowledge they were wrong in not electing Romney when they had the chance. Certainly Romney would get the vote of independents and conservative Democrats who deeply regret voting for the miserable liar who occupies the White House.
Alas, the Constitution does not allow for the recall of a president. The best we could hope for would be a president Biden if the Republicans retook the Senate in the midterms. Unless it could be proven Biden was in on the lying and we impeached him as well. That, however, would be historically unprecedented (and therefore quite unlikely).
Still, there could be some benefits to impeaching Hussein, namely slowing down (or even halting) his Socialist agenda of spending money we don't have and making the "rich" he vilifies pay for (some of) it (while borrowing the rest from China). What do you think? Should we impeach or should we not impeach?
I say yes, but wait until we get nearer to the midterms so we can use it as ammunition to take out his Democrat allies and win the Senate. When, exactly that would mean impeachment proceedings should begin I do not know, but I'm sure the Republicans are on top of it (or I hope they are).
I am troubled by the fact that nobody on the ground at Benghazi said anything about a protest and that the administration went with this idiocy for over 2 weeks straight. I am in fact with you on that one.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the charge? Ya'll are constantly yapping about impeachment but I've heard nothing about the charge(s) you're going to bring. Lying isn't a crime unless you're under oath. So either give us a charge or can it. You R's are sounding like a bunch of girls. Read the Constitution - "high crimes and misdemeanors" are impeachable offenses. Benghazi - stupid lie and a dumb idea; IRS issue - non starter - no one was actually injured by it; AP scandal - hang Holder, that dumb ass for it. He should have hung anyway when he refused to prosecute the bankers for crashing and burning the financial system.
ReplyDeleteCongrats to Scott (known as student Nixon while at Marquette) and the Badger state ! If he continues his union-busting,
ReplyDeletepro-Koch ways he may even drag you guys up to pro-biz Idaho. We
have moved down into 47th place in education and 48th place in income growth. Odd thing about big corps running states: greed tends to self-destruct. Enjoy your state's approach to third world status.
Lisa G. asks what the charge is? Lying and covering up what happened in Benghazi. It matters not if lying isn't a crime, as the Senate isn't part of our judicial system. To remove the liar from office all that is needed is the votes. He wouldn't be sent to jail, just removed from office (so it's more like a job review, and Hussein is doing very very poorly).
ReplyDeleteAlso, the IRS issue isn't a "non starter". Hussein used the IRS to harass his enemies in a very Nixonian fashion. That is extremely serious. I think the American people will agree (nobody likes the IRS).
I do agree with you on Holder though. He should have resigned in a fast and furious fashion when it was revealed the ATF was arming the Mexican drug cartels. He displayed some heavy duty incompetence there.
As for Mr. Idaho's thoughts on Scott Walker... The Libs thought they could recall him but they were WRONG. The people spoke and they said they liked the job Mr. Walker was doing. They liked that he was reigning in the greedy unions and their budget-busting salaries and gold-plated health insurance plans. Also, with Scott's big win surely there were Democrats who voted for him.
We know there were WI voters who went for Walker and Obama in both elections -don't ask me why someone who was intelligent enough to vote for Walker would then vote for Obama - but I think that pretty definitively proves that the voters approve of the direction Governor Walker has chartered for our state. They like his approach as well, which most certainly is not a "third world" one. How ridiculous.
Since I was born, raised and educated there, I still have many relatives in WI. So, regarding 'They like his approach as well, which most certainly is not a "third world" one. How ridiculous.' ..I must note that those that support Walker are
Deletereligious right: abortion is their sole raison d'etre- wages could drop to 25 cents an hour if only they could get abortion police arresting teenage girls. The others are more
interested in economics and progress...you know, what Wisconsin was always admired for in the past?
"The people spoke and they said they liked the job Mr. Walker was doing."
Delete...then they spoke up again and elected Tammy Baldwin by
6 points over her GOP opponent for the US Senate.
Walker is not union-busting at all. He has done nothing to prevent people from joining unions if they choose. The "union busting" claim is a scare tactic from organized well-funded anti-worker organizations (i.e. unions). Most voters and indeed most workers have seen through this in Wisconsin, and have voted for Walker.
ReplyDeleteBB, you seem like a reasonable fellow. I just can't understand why a reasonable person wouldn't support "right to work", which puts decision power in the hands of working people.
Also, I don't see how any reasonable person can't see that there is a big problem when union greed attacks government services. In the private sector, unions (at their best) screw corporate fatcats. But what about in the public sector? Unions do nothing but screw the public. Every time a public sector union makes gains, schools fail, class sizes soar, needy people lose necessary services, commuters die on dangerous unrepaired roads. There is simply no benefit to shoveling unearned money at public-sector union members, and so many costs and damage from doing this.
-----------
On this subject, about Benghazi... Hillary Clinton lied about the matter too, and in fact went after the First Amendment rights of filmmakers in her misplaced attack. I hope this dishonesty and contempt for basic rights haunts her so she never is any high office ever again.
I forgot to add a typical action of a public union. I know this personally, as a friend was one of the parents of a victim.
ReplyDeleteA sadistic thug of a school bus driver in my district was caught beating up kids on the bus. Some might say upon hearing this, that maybe the kids were unruly and deserve it? Discipline problem?
Well, the thing is, the kids the driver was abusing were disabled and wheelchair bound. The district fired the teacher. The school bus union fought hard to get her back on the job.
Is there any excuse for this?
Finally, BB... No one is talking about or defending corporations or corporate greed. Those who benefit from reining in the coercive power of union thugs are the workers themselves. This is all about power for workers, not corporations.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, there is no state run by corporations. In every state in the country, corporations pay massive tribute to the those who really rule, and regulations limit the ability of corporations to do business as they need (and unfortunately these regulations force the companies to fire people and go out of business). If they did rule, corporations would not pay any taxes, and there'd be no regulations at all.
So lets look at Idaho, shall we? They are ranked 20th, which is in the middle, for its business tax climate. So its business tax environment is "average", nothing unusual.
The two indicators of "worst" status thus have nothing to do with business taxes in Idaho.
As for Wisconsin sliding to 3rd world status, it is moving away from it, actually. A hallmark of typical third world rule is abusive, over-strong government. By restoring more money (tax reductions) and rights (worker protections) to the people of Wisconsin, it is only becoming more civilized.
.
ReplyDeleteYes. Sure. Impeach President Obama. Have at it.
What could possibly go wrong?
And imagine, should your pipe dream come true (given that there is absolutely no evidence of 'high crime or misdemeanor') and you remove President Obama from office, Mr Biden becomes President for the next 10 years!!
Right!!!!
You know sometimes "Larboard Brain"'s writings are so utterly STUPID ...
"... Certainly Romney would get the vote of independents and conservative Democrats who deeply regret voting for the miserable liar who occupies the White House."
OMitt RMoney again? Come on LB, you got to have a real replacement among the RepublicanT Party. OMitt RMoney, OMitt RMoney ...
Ema Nymton
~@:o>
.
I would have taken RepubliCant over what Obama ended up doing:
ReplyDeleteRepubliCan't run up constant $1 trillion +dollar debts year after year
RepubliCan't ignore the jobs problem and leave the ridiculously high unemployment rate as "the new normal"
I think we'd also be a lot better off if we OMitted the massive job loss under Obama as well.
'..why a reasonable person wouldn't support "right to work", which puts decision power in the hands of working people.' Decision power IS in the hands of working people: they can choose to work or not work for any company...or union. Right to Work lowers wages: a single worker has no influence on a company- he/she must take what is offered, or leave. Never having been in a union, but having managed both union and non-union, I fail to understand the logic of anti-union thinking...especially since there are very few left. If,
ReplyDeleteas I suspect, the thinking is that union bosses fleece the workers,
why pshaww..that's what the company does, so what the heck?
Right to work increases wages: instead of hundreds stolen by union bosses, the workers keep the money.
DeleteDecision power is only in the hands of workers in states with right-to-work protections for workers' rights. Without these workers get bullied into joining political fundraising operations that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job.
It is not anti-union to favor workers rights. I don't want people forced to join the NRA, ever. By your logic that means I must hate the NRA?
You are usually wise, but you are really slipping up here.
Right to work increases wages: instead of hundreds stolen by union bosses, the workers keep the money.
DeleteDecision power is only in the hands of workers in states with right-to-work protections for workers' rights. Without these workers get bullied into joining political fundraising operations that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job.
It is not anti-union to favor workers rights. I don't want people forced to join the NRA, ever. By your logic that means I must hate the NRA?
You are usually wise, but you are really slipping up here.
Public unions: right, powerful thugs. My wife, an educator, broke up a schoolground fight between kicking third graders. Broke her thumb.
ReplyDeleteSchool said 'we cannot offend the parents of the
little darlings', the union said 'we cannot offend the schoolboard. So she paid out of pocket. BTW, retired 10 years and she still goes back a day a week to help children learn to
read. FREE- because that is what she likes to do
and feels compelled to do....like most teachers.
I would truly like to see the naysayers spend a
few weeks in a classroom, rather than some soft
do nothing job in the private sector...you know,
something important?
This is also relevant,BB. Up until now, the massive MEA, the teachers union in Michigan, has enjoyed a situation in which all of its members were forced to join against their will. An interview in the major leftist newspaper in the state had a top MEA commissar reflect on Michigan's new status as a right to work state... in light of what happened in Wisconsin. The official said that right to work has forced them to listen to their members.
DeleteGo to the head of tbe class: of course an organization that bullies its members to join doesn't have to give a damn about anything the members think. Right to work improves unions and makes them serve workers better.
In December, shortly before right to work was passed, another union official lamented that it would result in all those jobs flooding back to Michigan from China. And this was something the union was dead set against.
Forget Fox News... this info comes from the union bosses themselves. They are happy to force jobs to China, and happy to rob and abuse their subjects with no accountability.
So, the "union bosses" ultimate goal is to eliminate their own jobs? Wouldn't they instead want more union jobs here in the US? Your theory does not make much sense to me dmarks.
ReplyDelete