« | »

The S&L ‘Hive’ – Please Talk Amongst Yourselves

Here is our weekend discussion thread, where comments on the general topics of the day are very welcome.

But please remember to post and comment on specific news items in the ‘Reader Selected News’ thread below or via the ‘News Selected By Our Readers’ link found in the sidebar.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, November 1st, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

18 Responses to “The S&L ‘Hive’ – Please Talk Amongst Yourselves”

  1. Petronius says:

    My sermon today is taken from Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).

    The lesson of Goldberg is this: Liberalism corrupts and absolute Liberalism corrupts absolutely.

    The Goldberg case arose from an attempt by the State of New York to terminate welfare payments under the Federal Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program to twenty unqualified claimants who had been engaged in welfare fraud.

    In a 5-3 decision, Justice Brennan writing the opinion for the majority (Brennan, Douglas, Harlan, Marshall, and White), the Court held that welfare benefits cannot be terminated without timely written notice and opportunity for a full and fair pre-termination evidentiary hearing, including the right to counsel and the right to present witnesses and cross-examination, and the right to a written decision on the record by an impartial decision-maker.

    Chief Justice Burger and Justices Black and Stewart dissented. Black observed that the Federal government is one of limited powers delegated by the people of the States under the written Constitution, and that the Court had crossed the line into law-making by using its judicial power and the due process clause for legislative purposes.

    According to the majority, the “right” to public welfare payments is a “property interest” within the meaning of the due process clause, just as strong as private property rights. Even stronger, in fact. And those welfare rights are rights that courts will enforce.

    I begin with this quote from Brennan’s opinion (brace yourselves):

    “Moreover, important governmental interests are promoted by affording recipients a pre-termination evidentiary hearing. From its founding, the Nation’s basic commitment has been to foster the dignity and well being of all persons within its borders. We have come to recognize that forces not within the control of the poor contribute to their poverty. This perception, against the background of our traditions, has significantly influenced the development of the contemporary public assistance system. Welfare, by meeting the basic demands of subsistence, can help bring within the reach of the poor the same opportunities that are available to others to participate meaningfully in the life of the community. At the same time, welfare guards against the societal malaise that may flow from a widespread sense of unjustified frustration and insecurity. Public assistance, then, is not mere charity, but a means to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The same governmental interests that counsel the provision of welfare, counsel as well its uninterrupted provision to those eligible to receive it; pre-termination evidentiary hearings are indispensable to that end.”

    That paragraph stands as a fine statement of Liberal ideology and policy but contains nothing that is either fact or law.

    Note the Court’s generous use of logical fallacies:

    • mind projection fallacy = projecting your personal reality onto the world, especially when the way you see the world is not the way the world really is; wishful thinking.

    • ad misericordiam = an emotional appeal to feelings of pity, guilt, or victimhood.

    • appeal to poverty = a type of red herring; supporting an argument as valid on grounds that the persons in question are poor.

    • argumentum ad baculum = an appeal to the stick, or threats; e.g., “welfare guards against the societal malaise that may flow from a widespread sense of unjustified frustration and insecurity.” In other words, “Without justice there can be no peace.”

    • presentism or the historian’s fallacy = projecting current ideas and moral standards into the past. Thus “From its founding the Nation’s basic commitment … promote the general Welfare…. “ It is impossible that the Founders entertained Marxist ideas of redistributionism, or that they would have equated “the general Welfare” with the workings of the modern welfare state.

    As infuriating as this paragraph may be, the next paragraph is utterly mind-boggling. It is a whopper––the real McCoy.

    The next paragraph equates a right to public assistance to private property rights. It erases the fundamental distinction between rights and privileges, between property and welfare relief, between those productive individuals who generate wealth through their work, and those who suckle at the government teat. It equates drones to worker bees, moochers to producers.

    Thus the Court continues:

    “It may be realistic [sic] today to regard welfare entitlements as more like ‘property’ than a ‘gratuity.’ Much of the existing wealth in this country takes the form of rights that do not fall within traditional common law concepts of property. It has been aptly noted that ‘[s]ociety today is built around entitlement. The automobile dealer has his franchise, the doctor and lawyer their professional licenses, the worker his union membership, contract, and pension rights, the executive his contract and stock options; all are devices to aid security and independence. Many of the most important of these entitlements now flow from government: subsidies to farmers and businessmen, routes for airlines and channels for television stations; long-term contracts for defense, space, and education; social security pensions for individuals. Such sources of security, whether private or public, are no longer regarded as luxuries or gratuities; to the recipients, they are essentials, fully deserved, and in no sense a form of charity. It is only the poor whose entitlements, although recognized by public policy, have not been effectively enforced.’”

    Did you catch that last part? “… essentials, fully deserved, and in no sense a form of charity.”

    “fully deserved….” Wow.

    Please note the confusion in the Liberal mind between “charity” or “gratuity” and things that are “fully deserved”––because in the real world things that are deserved are those that have been earned. As is often the case with Liberalism, words have lost their meaning:

    deserve (verb) = to earn; to be worthy of (either good or evil); to merit; to do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment).

    As Justice Black wrote in his dissent, “It somewhat strains credulity to say that the government’s promise of charity to an individual is property belonging to that individual when the government denies that the individual is honestly entitled to receive such a payment.”

    It should be obvious that franchises, licenses, contracts, salaries, pensions, stock options, operating rights of common carriers (such as airlines and broadcasters), and Social Security are not showered by the gods on all-comers like manna from heaven. They are earned; therefore they are deserved. Welfare, on the other hand, is not earned. It is a redistribution of wealth (property) from those who have earned it to those who have not.

    • Contract rights and stock options are property; they are things that have been earned and are, therefore, fully deserved. Thus (and contrary to the Supremes) contracts and stocks are part and parcel of the common law, and have been for centuries.

    • Similarly, note that (at least before the Age of Obama) government contracts are won by competitive bidding with the opportunity for, but no guarantee of, profit, and that in exchange the contractor provides valuable goods or services to the government, so that the government receives an equivalent bargained-for benefit from the contractor. Whatever profit the contractor may gain from his contract he has earned.

    • Social Security is not unearned welfare; it is a paid-in annuity. At least that is the way the program was originally structured and sold to the public.

    • Further note that professional licenses and the operating rights of regulated common carriers are the result of the applicant’s awesomeness––his qualifications, education, investment, and commitment to provide safe, ethical, and quality services to the public.

    • Finally, I should note that although farmers may receive price supports, and that certain politically well-connected businesses (Solyndra, et al.) may receive grants and subsidies, those situations are no excuse for granting everybody subsidies as a matter of right.

    Here the No-Good Nine decreed that welfare recipients have a legal right to receive their welfare payments, that those payments cannot be withdrawn without first providing full due process of law, and that their right is equal in law to the right of productive citizens to enjoy their rights in the property that they have produced.

    But that isn’t all. This decision essentially holds that the legal right of the welfare recipient is even greater than that of the producer. His welfare rights are like the seigniorial rights of a feudal lord. Because through the armed intervention of the state’s tax collectors, the welfare recipient is given a prior claim on the wealth that the producer has produced.

    And so in 1970, the Supreme Court set the stage for the appearance of Nerobama, the malignant narcissist, our psychopath president, our personal Zvengali and redistributionist par excellence, who immediately assumed a hectoring, belligerent, and menacing attitude toward “the rich,” toward the American taxpayers, toward those whom he characterizes as “enemies”––”enemies” who need to be “punished” by government.

    Today the taxpayer is robbed of his property and he had better just shut up and like it.

    The AFDC welfare queen bee, on the other hand, does nothing to earn her money. She only mates with the drones and drops a new welfare unit every nine months––or claims to have done so, as fraud is no bar to payment. And at the end of its gestation period, each new welfare unit arrives complete with its own package of welfare rights, potential reproductive rights, and voting rights––rights which are superior to those of the worker bees.

    Goldberg has done enormous damage to the Constitution. As Justice Black wrote:

    “Had the drafters of the Due Process Clause meant to leave judges such ambulatory power to declare laws unconstitutional, the chief value of a written constitution, as the Founders saw it, would have been lost. In fact, if that view of due process is correct, the Due Process Clause could easily swallow up all other parts of the Constitution. And truly the Constitution would always be ‘what the judges say it is’ at a given moment, not what the Founders wrote into the document. A written constitution, designed to guarantee protection against governmental abuses, including those of judges, must have written standards that mean something definite and have an explicit content. I regret very much to be compelled to say that the Court today makes a drastic and dangerous departure from a Constitution written to control and limit the government and the judges and moves toward a constitution designed to be no more and no less than what the judges of a particular social and economic philosophy declare on the one hand to be fair or on the other hand to be shocking and unconscionable.”

    While the damage done by Goldberg to the Constitution has been great, the damage to American society and the economy has been greater. The Goldberg decision was a major factor in New York City’s 1975 budget crisis and financial meltdown. In 1970, when Goldberg was decided, there were 9 million Americans on welfare. Today 49.2 percent of the people in America are dependent on some type of government benefits. This includes:

    23.2 million on WIC program ($131.4 billion per year)
    47.8 million on food stamps ($90 billion per year)
    20.2 million getting Supplemental Security Income ($57 billion estimated for 2013)
    13.4 million in public or subsidized housing ($102.1 billion per year)
    5.1 million on unemployment insurance ($61.5 billion per year)
    66.4 million enrolled in Medicaid (FY2010) ($413.8 billion in 2011)
    6 enrolled in Obamacare (2013) (new taxes and embedded costs are virtually impossible to quantify but are projected to be in the hundreds of billions annually)

    Today throughout the world free peoples are rejecting the welfare state and Soviet-style central planning––everywhere, that is, except in the United States. In the United States court decisions such as Goldberg v. Kelly paved the way for socialism and Federal bankruptcy under the tyranny of Nerobama, unrestrained by any Constitution.

    • Steve says:

      I add my own, ‘wow!’ That was quite an impressive exegesis, Mr. P.

      It should be required reading.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:


      Caused me to feel a great disturbance in the force.

    • GetBackJack says:

      Breathless reading, Mr. P. This is going far and wide amongst those I can reach. Truly superb. I am blessed to know such an intellect.

    • Noyzmakr says:

      Petronius, I hope you don’t mind, but I shared this post on my Google+. The place is packed full of National Socialists who obviously work for Obama for America or whatever they’re calling themselves these days. Every time a conservative group posts something, the same names show up over and over spreading lies and refuting the truth. I give ’em hell.

      Of course, I ascribed proper authorship to you Petronius.

  2. Noyzmakr says:

    Wow! Thank you for the lesson. That really proves that ‘national socialism’ is a mental illness. Three places in your ‘sermon’ jumped off the page at me.

    Justice Brennan’s statement….

    “We have come to recognize that forces not within the control of the poor contribute to their poverty.”

    While that may be true in a general sense but it can’t be the conclusion of any honest individual and it’s not so in most cases. I’ve been poor, homeless and wondering where my next meal would come from, and I’ve been well to do, secure in my finances and never worried about money. I have recognized that those times of hardship can be directly attributed to my days spent in drunkenness, laziness and being unwilling to seek employment. So, I alone was responsible for my ‘malaise’ and poverty.

    Petronius’ statement…

    “Because through the armed intervention of the state’s tax collectors, the welfare recipient is given a prior claim on the wealth that the producer has produced.”

    So true and what will eventually be the downfall of this nation. Why produce when you can live a life of relative ease and comfort from the largess of others?

    And finally Justice Black’s statement….

    “…if that view of due process is correct, the Due Process Clause could easily swallow up all other parts of the Constitution. And truly the Constitution would always be ‘what the judges say it is’ at a given moment, not what the Founders wrote into the document.”

    The man was a prophet.

    Again, thanks Petronius for passing on some of your vast knowledge to us, but especially to this unlearned country boy.

    The national socialists have been on a hundred year mission to tear down the nation that was founded on principles laid out first in Biblical texts. These rulings were a giant step forward in that direction. It is also the ‘mother of all ironies’ that the Justices who seem to do the most damage to the constitution and thus the country, all seem to have been appointed by republican presidents.

  3. canary says:

    Noyzmakr, I hear ya on Obama’s over use of the slang term “folks” strikes me every time.
    So, when I was practicing for Halloween punk role of an Acorn worker surveying Obama Care applicants I practiced what I’d say first and “folks” immediately came to mind as safe and political correct figuring since the President uses it ferociously. However, since my experience let’s me know more than ever our young adults and older adults have no idea what’s going on, and in my neck of the woods labeling people as “folks” is out of date in my neck of the woods and could come across as going back decades and some ignorant liberals might twist it as a demeaning. Either way, what saved my hide was busting out some moves a couple of times when wasted faces looked inquisive.
    Thanks to Capstubby getting me to think of my favorite movies, one of pics Napoleon Dynamite zapped into my mind and some of the moves may help in the future as a struggle with my cowardness this president’s administration accused me off. My back prevents the indecent moves, but there’s enough moves here for me to work on and polish. Mostly, only the young women got up and danced with me, but it had the guys clapping. There wasn’t even music playing!!!! and these moves work great without it.

    But, listen to the words of this song and it’s all the more this idea to break the tension and dance zapped in my mind. Oh. I wasn’t even wearing heels.


    Napoleon Dynamite Dance and Reverse.


    From the movie “Napoleon Dynamite”

    • Noyzmakr says:

      canary, If you can pull off those moves I’ll pay to watch…LOL.

    • captstubby says:

      “Oh. I wasn’t even wearing heels. ”
      canary just upped the ante,
      top that Petronius !

    • canary says:

      Noyz, I just tried some of the more indecent moves that hurt to do, but since you mentioned money, I can still do them. One of the where I bend backwards and get down lower with each move, I ended up falling forward.

      So, if we ever a Sweetness & Light get together you are on.

      My daughter is natural dancer. She can see a dance once or twice, and do it. She can hear a song once and twice and sing it. I am sad to say she gave up a very high paying dance lesson teacher and choreographer to working at private gentlemen clubs out of state. Ya know. Poles and all. Saddens my heart. She was such a beautiful graceful dancer in ballet too. Could jump and spin in the air.

      I am continuing my communication skills. I asked a middle-easterner about his dog. He had a Siberian Husky pup. I told him I had an Egyptian Greyhound that was incorrigible. Dang, he knew his dogs. I said well, they had statues 2000 A.D. His friend was a bit cool, when we started showing pics on our cell phones, and I kept smiling at him like I was dumb and got him smiling too. The Arab women are hopeless, but I’m not giving it.

      Also, I working on communicating with gay people. A lot of I wish I’d asked this and that moments.
      Such as, why do you want a petition to impeach Obama?

      Her girlfriend hates him too, but said it’s because she is a conservative. Interesting.

      I want to ask “When did you first feel you were gay?
      If they say they always felt that way I will ask specific questions like.
      “Really? Was it at day care?”

      I’ve got mixed results with gay males. I told one “you’re so cute. I love your clothes.” Then again, it might have been that he was a minority gay person that led him to be so rude.

      I told a white gay guy that these blinding colorful socks would look great on him, and he was so sweet to me.

      Can’t find a translator site to learn a greeting in “Bassa”. Liberia Africa has a fascinating history so I will have to connect on that basis.

    • canary says:

      LET ME BE CLEAR. I meant some of the “somewhat” indecent moves Napoleon Dynamite did in his dance. It embarrasses me to see any dirty dancing, especially like Miley Cyrus or Beyonce.
      Britney Spears was the birth of corrupted teens. Aside her music & dancing, her kissing that filthy Madonna was a terrible role model.

      Because of the filth on television today’s news had an elementary school in British Columbia “ban” any and all touching on recess. It’s to avoid injuries, but includes no holding hands. You can bet these young kiddies are acting out what is all around them as the norm.

      And I saw in this mornings news where a principal in a high school here in the USA “banned school dancing for an entire year.
      And while the principal did not go into graphic detail, you can picture today’s teens grinding in the dang classrooms.

      Which reminds me. Now that my son is out of HS I plan on writing a very politically correct letter as to what I think of their disgusting dress code.
      The girls are allowed to wear hot shorts, and the guys shorts are growing shorter. I will use conservative wording such as

      “It sickens me the school does not have the girls that choose to wear shorts up their vagina’s
      not have to wipe the desk seats with sani-wipes for the student’s in classes that follow. Chances are they don’t even wipe those seats once a year the schools are so cheap. And I will mention with the increase of MRSA and Staff infections from male athletes becoming an epidemic from dirty locker rooms, seeing their hairy legs is bad enough without worrying some student girl in hot shorts might get staph or MRSA in her vagina or anal hole. I should use cuss words since it’s okay for the coaches to cuss and say buddy parts. It’s not worth my time. Deep breath. I am trying to get a life.

  4. captstubby says:

    Petronius has once again raised the bar.
    if i may ride on his coat tails a bit.
    the ” ‘what the judges say it is’ ”
    made me pull up a long abandon project that i started but never saw all the way through.

    if i may,

    the near Omnipotent

    Supreme Court

    the question of

    whether Congress had the power to give a Supreme Court appellate

    jurisdiction over the final decisions of the highest state courts.


    years ago i read a interesting” what if” book,


    The Guns of the South

    (1992) is an alternate history sci fi novel set during the American Civil War by Harry Turtledove.about a Southern victory in the war.

    in the new C.S.A., there was no Supreme Court.

    while i admit to not possessing the Legal or Constitutional expertise to fully understand the ramifications of such an action,

    research has turned up some thought provoking reading.

    Recovering the Legal History of the


    G. Edward White


    “Although the government of the Confederate States of America has

    been formally treated as a legal nullity since 1878, from February, 1861 to

    April, 1865 the Confederacy was a real government, with a Constitution, a

    Congress, district courts, and administrative offices.”

    “In most respects the principle of state sovereignty, as applied to the

    Confederacy, served to reinforce the sanctity of slaveownership. All the

    states forming the Confederacy were slave states, and the initial audiences

    for the secessionist commissioners were slave states remaining in the

    Union. But when protection for the right of slave-ownership ran squarely

    up against the principle of state sovereignty, the drafters of the Confederate

    Constitution opted to subordinate the former to the latter. They reasoned

    that because individual sovereignty only manifested itself in the sovereignty

    of states, if a state resolved to abolish the “right” of slave ownership, it

    could. When a Georgia delegate to the Confederate constitutional

    convention offered a provision that “no State shall be admitted [to the

    Confederacy] which, by its constitution or laws, denies the right of property

    in negro slaves,” the drafters voted it down.

    Thus one of the ironies of the creation of the Confederacy was that its

    drafters took pains to establish a federal government whose powers were deliberately checked and circumscribed so that the sovereignty of the states

    who formed it could be clearly understood,

    “Suppose for instance, this law [organizing the Supreme Court with

    Section 45 intact] (Judiciary Act of 1861, § 45 (stating that “a final judgment or decree in any

    suit, in the highest court of law or equity of a state . . . may be re-examined, and reversed or

    affirmed in the Supreme Court of the Confederate States, upon a writ of error”).

    remains, and as a consequence you have unity in the

    interpretation of Confederate laws by the decision of the Judicial power

    of the Confederate States. There will be constitutional questions arising

    affecting the rights of the States; and the State tribunals . . . may unite in

    declaring a Confederate law to be unconstitutional, which the Supreme

    Court will reverse and declare to be constitutional. The sovereignty—

    the reserved rights of the States—will in such event be made to yield to

    the decision of five office holders of the Confederate Government,

    appointed by the Confederate Executive . . . . Determine this to be the

    law, and that the construction of the Constitution by the Confederate

    Government shall be enforced against the decisions of the State courts,

    and on that day you will have planted the roots of the dissolution of this

    Confederacy; on that day you will have imported into this new

    Government the evils that destroyed the old. The lights of a sore

    experience—all the travails we have undergone—will avail naught if we

    are to tread the same path of aggression upon the rights of the States to

    the final disruption of this Government. Such will be the effect of

    giving to the Supreme Court the capacity to absorb within itself the

    Judicial power of the States on questions involving the reserved rights of

    the people.398

    and a short attention span let it rest as is.

    • Noyzmakr says:

      Again, Wow. I have learned plenty today from all of you.

      One thing’s for sure, In the hierarchy of the coming revolutionary force, all of you guys and gals will make up the admiralty, generals and statesmen, and I will proudly serve as a ‘grunt’. LOL.

  5. captstubby says:

    i post this here instead of in the News section , as it evolved into something close to home before i was done.

    ObamaCare architect defends plan, says president not to blame for rollout glitches
    Published November 03, 2013

    WASHINGTON – The architect of the Affordable Care Act insisted on “Fox News Sunday” that President Obama isn’t to blame for the rocky rollout of ObamaCare and deflected charges that the administration misled Americans about being able to keep their current health plans.
    Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist, was part of the president’s health care reform team for two years and is the brother of former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.
    “We grandfathered in plans,” Emanuel said.
    Host Chris Wallace pressed Emanuel to defend the growing number of cancellation notices sent to people whose plans changed after the law was implemented, but Emanuel could not.
    Instead, he blamed much of the problems on insurance companies and not the new law.
    “The law does not say ‘Sears drop coverage!’ Sears decides what’s good for Sears,” Emanuel said. “The insurance decides how to make money. When the private companies decide to drop an individual, you blame Obama. He isn’t responsible for that.”

    and before its over, i’ll bet it will “Bush’s Fault.”
    and if you are like me and and had no freaking idea what this guy does,(besides- “Nepotism . favoritism granted in politics or business to relatives regardless of merit”)

    here is what it is…


    The study of the ethical and moral implications of new biological discoveries and biomedical advances, as in the fields of genetic engineering and drug research.

    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,


    (Philosophy) (functioning as singular) the study of ethical problems arising from biological research and its applications in such fields as organ transplantation, genetic engineering, or artificial insemination

    Collins English Dictionary –

    a field of study and counsel concerned with the implications of certain medical procedures, genetic engineering, and care of the terminally ill.
    Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

    The study of the ethical and moral implications of medical research and practice.
    The American Heritage® Science Dictionary

    1. bioethics – the branch of ethics that studies moral values in the biomedical sciences
    moral philosophy, ethics – the philosophical study of moral values and rules
    neuroethics – the study of ethical implications of treatments for neurological diseases

    What is a Clinical Bioethicist?
    by Guest Blogger on June 6, 2013 ·
    in Healthy Living
    My father once asked me, “My friends ask me all the time what you do, and I don’t know what to tell them.” He’s not the only one. I’ve had friends, other relatives and even coworkers ask me what it is that I do. “So you counsel people?” “What questions do they ask you?” “B-i-o-e-t-h-i what? Can you spell that?”
    Bioethics is a field that addresses ethical issues in any area involving living organisms. This includes medical ethics, environmental ethics and animal ethics. Clinical bioethics or clinical ethics (the terms are interchangeable) is a subcategory of medical ethics.
    so bioethicist seems to cover a lot of ground.

    i am a bit hesitant about including this next one as i will explain at the end.

    Culture of Death: “Bioethicist” Pushes Self-Starvation as a Method of Dying
    by Wesley J. Smith | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 7/25/13 10:34 AM
    The culture of death is like a cancer sapping the moral health of western society. And, like a cancer, it never stops spreading.
    … Oxford bioethicist Julian Savulescu supporting palliated self starvation as a manner of dying. To get to that conclusion, he uses the right of people to refuse tube feeding–legal because it is deemed a medical treatment–as the multiplyer to grow the death agenda.
    The right to refuse treatment = a right to starve oneself to death with a doctor’s help = a right to be lethally injected.
    And that, my friends, is a classic example of how the culture of death metastasizes. By destroying principle, deconstructing definitions, and blurring ethical boundaries.

    what i fear is The Government, Obama care, Death panel bioethicist , or IRS making such a decision.

    yesterday i went to a funeral of a very old and dear friend .
    taken by Cancer.(and it wasn’t pretty.)
    Faith, Mercy, Compassion ,or just what is morally right is always question at these moments ,
    or maybe its all just the Grief talking.
    suicide, or assisted suicide is something between only you and your Maker .
    and will leave it at that for now.

    i did not intend this to conclude this way,
    but had to vent somehow.
    i hope you will understand.
    thank you all.

  6. Melly says:

    Here’s an interesting look into local politics here in NY that you may wish to apply on a broader scale. Westchester County Executive race. (Westchester County is about 20 miles north of NYC – it’s also the county in which the local newspaper The Journal News published an interactive map of gun permit holders addresses. And it has the highest property taxes in the nation.) Republican Westchester County Executive Rob Astorino captured his second term beating back a challenge from liberal progressive New Rochelle Mayor Noam Bramson with a message of lower taxes. 55-45%. There’s a two-to-one Democratic registration advantage in Westchester.

    Astorino was labelled as a Tea Party Republican and yet won. A Marist poll released in early October found that 64 percent of residents thought the county was going in the right direction.

    Bramson tried to engage voters by turning the election into a referendum on values. He pitched himself as the pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-gay marriage candidate in opposition to Astorino’s socially conservative stances. Additionally, Chuck U Schumer and Bill Clinton came out to support Bramson. Bubba held a fund raiser for Bramson.

    And yet the liberal lost.

    Additionally, Additionally in BUFFALO, NY – Tim Howard wins his second re-election for Erie County Sheriff.

    With 51% of the votes in, 2 On Your Side has declared Howard the winner. Howard (R) has 53% (48,728), Dobson (D) has 30% (26,827) and Dunn (L&O) has 17% (15,303).

    Howard says his opposition to the NY Gun Safe Law played a big role in his re-election.

  7. canary says:

    Selebious admitted felons are running Obama Care web site and have access to people’s personal identity information. No back ground check were done. One man notified by a worker he had all his security information spent 5 days and only with Congress raising heck got his information he gave registering taken off the site.

    Well, we knew Acorn workers and people pulled off the street an running our health.

  8. captstubby says:

    starting a few elections ago, the Republican Party ,to its constituents , has taken on for all practical purposes,

    the status of …

    The obligatory Christmas card

    Wife-“Oh look Dear, a card from the Republicans.”


    Wife-“The Republicans,you know ,those nice people in Washington we liked so much when we where younger.”

    Husband-“The Actor Guy ?”

    Wife-” no silly ,he passed away years ago.

    look they sent a picture.”

    Husband-” is that guy standing by his Grandfather crying?”

    Wife-” he can’t help it, you remember when we read he had that Spine Problem.”

    Husband- “it still looks like he’s crying.”

    Wife-” lets call and cheer them up.”

    Husband-” the last time we did, all we got is a answering machine message and later a letter asking for money.”

    Wife- “oh don’t be so mean.”

    “we don’t know how long they have left on this Earth.”

    Husband-” we are not sending them anymore cards .Screw ’em”

    • canary says:

      The difference…

      Boston Globe: Vice President Biden Congratulates the Wrong Martin Walsh

      By Michael Levenson NOV 06,

      Just after the Boston election results arrived Tuesday night, Martin Walsh’s cellphone rang.

      It was the vice president of the United States, Joseph R. Biden, offering his congratulations.

      “You son of a gun, Marty!” he thundered. “You did it!”

      The only problem was, it was the wrong Marty Walsh.

      Marty Walsh said he also got jubilant voicemail messages from Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, and from R.T. Rybak, the mayor of Minneapolis and vice chairman of the committee.


      Can’t imagine Obama Care web sites future glitches. They already fish for people as creditors
      shamelessly do.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »