Tag Archives: the economy

Democrats Must Make A Decision. Tax Relief is Either Good for the Econmy or Bad for the Economy?

Bookmark and Share    Ahead of President Obama’s newest major speech and address to a joint session of Congress, there is much discussion about several solutions to the jobs problem that revolve around taxation. The buzz is that alleviating some of the tax burden will provide incentives for businesses to hire. This talk is not coming from Republicans. It is coming from Democrats, including President Obama. While Republicans are always in support of a good tax cut for all entities, Democrats usually are not. In fact today’s socialist Democrat Party loves to try to claim that Republicans only want to cut taxes for the rich. Then they subsequently stretch what the definition of “rich” is.

But the fact that a large number of Democrats are willing to withhold on any reduced rate of tax collection is an incredibly profound change and although they are unwilling to admit it, it is also a big admission to the success of supply-side economics and the benefits of tax cuts.

The argument is that the economy is so bad that we must relieve some of the tax burden on businesses and offer them incentives to hire. Mind you, this is not what Republicans are arguing, it was Democrats are arguing and even proposing. On Thursday President Obama is said to begin rolling out a job creation program which is a mix of tax cuts and spending that amounts to another stimulus package and is proposing such things as tax relief for businesses.

In fact, today, socialist Democrats all across America are supporting lessening taxes as a means to stimulate the economy. Just this past Summer, many Democrats supported the repatriation of corporate taxes on profits made by them outside of the United States at a lower than normal rate. But one of the liberal objections to this was that companies would not use a tax reparation holiday and the additional money they would make on the lower than normal tax rate of such a tax holiday, on creating jobs here in America. So some liberals wanted to pass legislation that would use the additional funds from a tax holiday, to lower unemployment in the U.S.. But according to liberal California Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, such legislation is wrong. Back in June she reportedly said;

“I think you should be able to spend your money how you want to use your money,”

She added;

“The last time in 2004 when we did this, corporations used it and bought back their stock. So what? If I was a stockholder in that company, I did well.”

I never thought I would write this, but Sanchez was right. But Sanchez’s thinking here is consistent with her record which is usually a tax and spend mentality that relies on the government taking the money out of the free market and spending it and redistributing it themselves. And such inconsistent liberal thinking is becoming prevalent during the current economic crisis.

Back in July, the bastion of liberalism known as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts signed off on their own holiday. It was a sales tax holiday that lasted set for just two days in August and it gave shoppers a temporary break from the state’s 6.25 percent sales tax. This amounted to an estimated $20 million tax cut for consumers. After a Massachusetts House vote that passed the bill with 123 votes for it, to a mere 23 votes against it, the state’s liberal House Speaker, Robert DeLeo said in a statement;

“The House has once again voted to stimulate local businesses which keep jobs in Massachusetts.”

He subsequently added;

“With folks across the Commonwealth continuing to struggle through the economic downturn, the sales tax holiday will provide relief to consumers while supporting local merchants.”

Such thinking is correct. It is the same thinking that people like Jack Kemp have devoted their lives to. It is the same thinking that till this very day, liberals ridicule President Ronald Reagan for. Yet today, Democrats are embracing the policy as a means to create jobs and stimulate the economy. And this goes for President Obama.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is that if such supply side, tax relief thinking can be applied to getting our nation out of its current economic crisis, why is it not good enough to keep us from entering economic crisis?

Lower tax rates on businesses, corporations, families, and individuals are either good or bad. Republicans contend that a lower tax burden is good but Democrats are trying to tell us that a lower tax burden is only good when the economy is ailing. But you can’t have it both ways. So which is it? Do today’s socialist Democrats accept the fact that lower taxes allow for a stronger economy or do they hurt the economy?

Today Democrats are willing to admit that lower taxes help are good for America. But tomorrow they will once again begin preparing campaign literature and ads that try to wage class warfare and accuse Republicans of being for only the big business and the wealthy. I have long maintained that the liberal socialist ideology of the Democrat Party is an illogical, hypocrisy based ideology. This just helps prove it.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

President Obama Has the Right To Remain Silent ?

Bookmark and Share President Obama recently held a bill signing ceremony for the Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act. When it was over, reporter Chip Reid tried to ask a question and the President responded by saying that a press conference will be forth coming but he would not be answering questions at the time. Some might call refusing to answer questions from the press at a bill signing that promotes freedom of the press,  ironic.   I call it hypocritical and extremely poor planning by the Whitehouse press office and President’s advisors.

But the incident highlighted a very conspicuous failing of this, the “most transparent Administration in history” that candidate Barack Obama once promised us.  Because if this is the most transparent presidency we’ve ever seen, than somebody better tell Huston that we have a problem with lift off.

In a truly transparent Administration, the President and his spokesman do not spend 7 months dodging questions and avoiding answers about possible federal bribery charges regarding attempts to influence the election of a federal official.

In a truly transparent Administration, its President would not avoid addressing questions regarding continued high unemployment and the effects of an unprecedented ballooning of the deficit or avoid being put on the spot with questions regarding the real cost of his socialized government takeover of healthcare which came to light, after he and his Congress rammed it through by a partisan vote and against the will of the people.

If this Administration and President were truly transparent, it would not have spent the last 305 days avoiding the press and refusing to answer questions from the national press corp.

While President Obama has plenty of time to do NBA interviews with TNT, the last time President Obama held a full fledged press conference was on July 21sr of last year.

The longest President George Bush ever went in between press conferences was 214 days. And for that he was attacked and labeled “secretive”. But this President is given a pass.

No contemporary president has gone almost a year without holding a press conference and avoiding the inquiring minds of the media that covers him. Since LBJ, the President to have, so far, held the fewest press conferences, oddly was the Great Communicator, Ronald Reagan. He averaged 5.76 press conferences a year.

60 more days and President Obama will have held no solo press conferences at all.

Like Reagan, President Obama has been touted as “articulate”. They also claim that President Obama is a commanding presence and quite persuasive and knowledgeable.

If that is so, why won’t he come forward and demonstrate how knowledgeable, articulate and persuasive he is and answer the questions of the national press? Could it be that like his socialist policy proposals, he is all about control and is afraid that he can not control the news and information that the free press might generate in the wake of non-scripted press conference?

Could it be that the President does not want to have to go on record denying that his Administration tried to bribe Congressman Joe Sestak in his race for the US Senate or that he does not want to have to defend the bullying tactics of his Chief of Staff Rahm “Rhambo” Emanuele? Maybe President Obama does not want to have to explain why his record level of federal spending has really not stabilized banking and lending interests, the stock market, employment, national productivity or the economy in general?

President Obama also does not want to have to answer questions regarding why so few people in his party actually voted for a healthcare scheme that they did not reads and why it is taking so long for anyone in his Administration to read the new Arizona illegal immigration enforcement law, but are still going to challenge it.

He also does not want to have to explain why it is taking months for his Environmental Protection Agency to issue the permits needed in order for the people of Louisiana to start building the protective sand barriers that they hope will protect the state’s sensitive marshes from the oil that continues to billow out into the Gulf of Mexico. Nor does President Obama want to answer as to why British Petroleum seemingly received preferential regulatory treatment and passes after they donated a million dollars to his political war chest.

In short, President Obama is avoiding a press conference because there is little if anything positive he could say without lying. He can’t say that his strong foreign policy initiatives have deterred Iran from their pursuit of nuclear weapons, or that it has prevented North Korea from doing the same and averted any acts of aggression from them such as the sinking of a South Korean ship.

He can’t claim that either he or someone in his Administration tried to bribe Joe Sestak. And at the same time, if he were to claim that Joe Sestak is lying, he would essentially be costing his Party a much needed seat in the Senate that could even make the difference between minority status and majority control.

President Obama is looking forward to holding a national press conference about as much as he is looking forward to the upcoming mid-term elections. He knows that nothing good will come of it for him or his Party. He knows that anything he says will simply be held against him either in the court of law or the court of public opinion and like a coward he refuses to face his fears.

And so what was once suppose to be the most transparent Administration in his history is quickly becoming the most clandestine, tightlipped, center of secrecy we have seen since the Saturday Night Massacre, when Richard Nixon fired everyone who refused to cover up the truth in Watergate.

Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under politics

Political Winners and Losers of The Week

Politics 24/7 Winners and Losers

Bookmark and Share

Week of 11/30 – 12/06/09


Politics 24/7 Thumbs Down

 Senator Max Baucus PhotobucketPhotobucket

Democrat Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus admitted to sending a nomination for his girlfriend and former staffer, Melodee Hanes to President Obama for the job of US Attorney for Montana. The admission came only after a news outlet that that covers events involving the US Department of Justice, discovered the relationship between Baucus, Hanes, and her nomination. Were it not for the discovery by a third party, Senator Baucus would not have admitted to anything. Hanes was not ultimately selected for the job by President Obama and since Hanes did not get the position, it is not an issue. However, what is at issue is the integrity of another powerful Democrat. Any politician who is sincere and above reproach, would recuse themselves from making such a nomination, with the understanding that even if their girlfriend was the most qualified person for the job, the romantic involvement would not, given the circumstances, provide the greatest sense of confidence in the nomination. Patronage is nothing new and this incident is not necessarily a scandal, especially compared with the improprieties of other Democrat leaders like Charlie Rangel, but it does show that Max Baucus is just as much a part of the problem in Washington as the rest of them.

Mike HuckabeePhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucket

In a story that ended this past week and began the week before that, the former Republican Governor from Arkansas and GOP presidential hopeful who turned into a Fox News Channel T.V. show host, lost any chance of aspiring to the presidency of the United States anytime soon. As governor Huckabee pardoned and commuted the sentences of more criminals than all of his three predecessors put together, a  few of those whose sentences were expedited by him were found to have committed violent rapes after being freed early. The issue was a mark against him in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. But now another criminal offered leniency by Huck, killed 4 police officers in Washington state after his early release from prison. No matter what, Mike Huckabee bears a burden of responsibility for the process that made this possible and no matter what reasoning or excuses that may be made, the early releases of prisoners by Huckabee have expedited the deaths of a combined total of at least five, if not more people, as well as several rapes. Huckabee’s leadership failed those people and their families and failed to protect all of us. At the very least, Huckabee should suffer a dashing of any hope of becoming President of the United States and to call him a loser of the week is an understatement.

The EconomyPhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucket

Nationally, Democrats are boasting the virtues of the fact that we only lost 110,000 jobs in October. The fact that October typically brings large numbers of seasonal holiday hiring’s and that we still lost more than  a hundred thousand jobs does not seem to matter to Democrats. They ignore the fact that jobs are still being lost and that the imploding economy held down seasonal hiring. They also ignore the continued hemorrhaging of jobs in areas associated with a sustainable rebound in activity, including trade, transportation, utilities, construction and manufacturing. And while the Administration celebrates there only being 110,000 jobs lost, they fail to embark upon any policies that will truly increase any longterm job growth and establish sustainable  economic growth. Instead they promote government spending which produces no return on the dollar and no long term promise. Adding to the liberal celebration over things “not being worse” is the Administration’s proven doctoring of the books, ala Recovery.org which recorded jobs in places that don’t exist, and  you have liberal slights of hand that do not include 100,000 jobs deleted from the rolls of those looking for a work because they gave up. In the end what you have is no reason to party or to be optimistic about current economic policies. No matter what, despite White House spawned celebrations that areextolled by a media hypnotized by the President, the economy was a loser this week and if things keep going this way, it will be losing for a long time to come.

RedWhiteBlue.gif picture by kempite


POLITICS 24/7 Thumbs Up

General Stanley McChrystalPhotobucketPhotobucket

After a long awaited decision, President Obama has agreed to send the man on the ground and in charge of the war effort in Afghanistan, the forces that he requested to get the job done. McChrystal was smart though. He didn’t just request the troops. Several weeks ago, frustrated by no signs of the President’s  commitment to the cause, McChrystal allowed his position on more troops  to “leak” out. Word quickly spread that the man who knew what he was doing and what needed to be done in Afghanistan was ready to resign if he didn’t get what he wanted. Such “leaks”  do not happen by chance in the covert world of military planning and operations…………..at least not unless of course they are intentionally orchestrated. The events helped put the issue of Afghanistan on the front burner and consequently put in motion the chain of events that spurred the President into action. Shortly after the “leak”, the President met with McChrystal and all of sudden convened meetings with his war council, among the first of his administration. McChrystal did not get the full compliment of forces that he officially requested but something tells me that the good General is a good poker player and that heexaggerated his numbers intentionally so that he would wound up with what he really needed. On this one, it’s McChrystal one, politicians zero.

The TalibanPhotobucket

Although President Obama finally moved on his commitment to the war in Afghanistan, which he calls a war of necessity, he provided the main enemy, in the war there, with some crucial information. President Obama told the enemy when they can expect the pressure to be taken off of them by letting them know that the US will begin to pull out of Afghanistan in 18 months. That type of itinerary is not exactly the one that should be shared with those who we are trying to keep in the dark on things. Perhaps that type of public timeline is a good way for a “community organizer” to let his volunteers knows how long they have to get their message out but it is not the way a President should organize a war effort. Of course this timeline could always be moved up. Problem is, in 18 months, if President Obama back pedals on this one, his liberal base, which wants us out as soon as yesterday, will be quite angered an not at a very good time. That will be only 18 months before his reelection effort. Not a good time to have your base of support pissed at you. President Obama would have been best served, and would have best served us, by not letting the Taliban know how long they have to hold on and how long they need to stay hidden under their rocks and in their caves.

Carly FiorinaPhotobucketPhotobucketPhotobucket

The former CEO of Hewlett Packard recently declared that she will be seeking the opportunity to run against California’s US Senator Barbara “Call Me Senator” Boxer and this past Saturday she made it clear that she is a force to be reckoned with. After winning her own battle against breast cancer, Republicans turned to Fiorina to give their response to the President’s weekly Saturday address. With the ongoing healthcare debate taking center stage, her response was one that resonated loudly, clearly and much more profoundly than anything President Obama has ever said on the issue. In her six and a half minute address, Fiorina highlighted a recent government medical panel’s conclusion to delay mammogram tests by a decade in an attempt to save costs. Quite eloquently and with a tone of calmness and dignity that Barbara Boxer could only find in others when it is pointed out to her,  Fiorina explained how the same Preventive Services Task Force that recommended women put of testing, is the same task force that the current healthcare reform bill empowers to influence the coverage and preventive care that government run healthcare will allow for or provide. She also pointed out that the bill specifically authorizes (sec. 4105) that the Secretary of Health and Human Services deny payment for preventive services that this same Preventive Service Task Force recommends against. She adds, “do we really want government bureaucrats dictating how we prevent and treat something like breast cancer”? She also points out that “there is a reason why American women with breast cancer have a higher survival rate than women in countries with government run health care.” All in all, Carly Fiorina delivered one of the most powerful speeches against government run healthcare that this most recent debate has yet seen. (See the video below for yourself) And at the same time, she just gained herself the confidence of a lot of people who are looking for the right person to fire that silver bullet into the career of the nasty, flippant, onoxious, and arrogant, liberal queen of mean, Barbara Boxer.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics


Bookmark and Share    I understand that some national policies are  moving us  towards socialism and is  removing incentive from our society.  I realize that rewarding mediocrity is something that, in the long run, benefits no one. But what I did not realize is that there exists a protest movement that is going with the government flow and accepting medicrioty as a means to teach government a lesson.  The movement is accepting the results of national policies and reducing their high levels of productivity which are being penalized more than rewarded.

atlas_02It is called Going Galt.

It stems from a classic American novel written by Ayn Rand called Atlas Shrugged. Although written in 1954, the book is as timely as ever.

It is a story about an America where the innovators and creators in our society have disappeared and we lose those of great talent and abilities. It is a theoretical description of the result of our loss of individuality and our market economy. In the book, the government is the oppressive bureaucracy that stifles success and rewards mediocrity. Government is the looter and it reflects the philosophy of socialism. Instead of rewarding success, government penalizes it.

As a result, a character in the book, named John Galt, covertly leads a movement to withdraw the most talented and innovative from the free market engine of the world economy. Galt leads those, who refuse to be exploited by looting governments, on a crusade that denies the looters any booty to loot.

Prompted by the government’s taking incentives out of success and innovation in order to spread the wealth, those who fuel our economy withdraw and government eventually loses its source of wealth and its means to sustain itself and the people it tries to spread wealth to.

That is the premise behind Going Gault.

One web site writes that “Going Galt is dropping out. Closing a business, leaving your job or just working to survive.”

This, in essence cuts off the funding source of government, otherwise known as the looters.

Without having your endless productivity to tax, the government will have nothing to loot and eventually the socialist desire to spread wealth is killed off by there being no wealth to spread.

Since we are becoming a society that increasingly punishes success and productivity many feel it is time for those who make the money and pay the taxes to take it easy, live on less and let the government looters try to spread wealth with very little available wealth.

Current economic policy directions are making the Going Galt  movement more and more prevalent. After all, rally07President Obama ran and won on a platform that promised to take money from those who are productive and redistribute it to those who are not as productive or successful. So where is the incentive to be so productive? Where is the desire to earn more if that only means that more will be taken from you. 

This leads us to a modern day version of Atlas Shrugged.

Imagine the local supermarket whose owner has more money taken away from them for having a good business. Now imagine that supermarket owner closing his store and putting a sign up on the door that says “Going Galt”. Imagine that sign hanging on those closed doors for three or four days a week.

Under the current system of penalizing success, the store owner may end up with the same amount of money in his own pocket after selling less product than he could have made for selling more products.

Of course the government will also yield less from that store owner and will have less wealth to hand out to the employees of that store who will already be losing out on three or four days of employment and salary.

It’s a vicious cycle that creates a downward spiral  prompted by socialist policies which can’t sustain themselves and certainly cannot sustain our government. It is also the impetus behind Going Galt.

Some ways to Go Galt include stop investing. Capital gains taxes remove your profits and enable the government to continue and expand socialist policies. So dry up the source of the financing of those policies. Stop investing.

HowToGoGalt.com also suggests that you “Visit your local school board, or send a letter asking the economics department to teach free market capitalism. A great book to suggest is Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics. I would also suggest donating Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, A Man In Full and other good books to your local school library. Put the pinch on local looters by voting down new tax levies, and supporting groups that fight new taxes. On the other hand it’s a good time to support vocational education and two year technical colleges. Stop giving money to your college alma mater. Just about every college embraces a socialist ideology.”

Going Galt is not a positive thing to have to do, it is really a last resort. But with the way things are going, many in society feel that we are that point.

After seeing some Republicans equivocate on fiscal issues and after witnessing Democrats adopt socialism, many feel that Going Galt,  breaking the government wealth distribution system and proving the point, is the only way to bring about change that is meaningful.

Going Galt  may actually be the change that we need in order to really give us hope again.

So the next time  a tax is raised, a new government program is created and a new private sector company is taken over by the federal government, send a message, Go Galt and let liberals begin to understand just how unsustainable socialism really is.

Bookmark and Share


Q: How does a politician or reporter sleep?
A: First he lies on one side, and then he lies on the other.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics


Bookmark and Share    As the nation copes with the perceived economic downturn, conservative pessimists are faced with answering how they intend to lead us out of economic collapse with out accepting socialism as the solution .

antbankbail1Regarding the bailouts of non-government businesses, some have come up with alternatives that would spare private sector businesses from bureaucratic, government takeovers and would allow for assurances that will prevent the collapse of the wealth of almost everyone else.

The recent Treasury plan, has a disturbing effect on how wealth is dispersed and their new plan rescues banks and protect bank shareholders and debt holders, while not encouraging them to lend more.

Currently in order for the federal government to guarantee bad assets at rates above their market value essentially only transfers to those holding those bad assets and it enables them to convert those assets to cash. Ultimately, the plan only preserves the wealth of financial investors and banking insiders. What the current treasury plan fails to do is prevent the collapse of the wealth of everyone else.

A major part of the current crisis is the lack of lending. The lack of lending is causing a tightening up of sales and production and this trend in commerce is rippling out from their.

Part of the solution is to free up credit. Reasonable credit, not the sub-prime type of government mandated loans that helped to create this crisis, but legitimate loans.

One proposed answer to the problem came in the form of testimony before the House Financial Services Committee.

In that testimony it is stated that since “several very big banks are deeply troubled, there is no viable alternative to placing them in receivership, insuring their deposits, replacing their management, doing a clean audit, isolating the bad assets. Since these banks were clearly too large, they should be broken up, and either sold in parts or relaunched as multiple mid-sized institutions with fresh capitalization and leadership. And meanwhile, we keep the economy running by creating a public bank to provide the loans sufficient enough to keep small, medium and large sizes businesses running through the current crisis. This was the function, in the Depression, of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation”.

According to the report “while the need for this today is very clear in the automotive sector, as time goes on a much larger part of American industry and commerce will face similar problems and similar needs. The resulting forced liquidation of the productive sector is a distinct possibility, and is not in our national interest.”

Perhaps Congress would be wise to heed the advice of some of those whom they are hearing from.

Perhaps it is time for Congress to truly realize that a free people are not made richer by a government that mandates financial policies which financial experts would tell you are failed business models. Maybe congress can understand that the answer to the problems they created is not more of what created the problem.

From the testimony given so far, I can easily see the need for the bad assets, which government mandates created and allowed, to be isolated and then have the process revamped. I also see that it more advisable for the federal government to create public banks to get institutions through the current crisis without having the government take them over and move closer to the policies of socialism that we have fought against for so long.

Bookmark and Share
For those of you who find economics to be a bit complex at times, (like me) you will find this video of economic interpretations quite amusing

Leave a comment

Filed under politics



Bookmark and Share    President Obama delivered a powerful speech that focused on bipartisanship and counted on the hope that the poor performance of the private sector over the past two years has forced people to have more faith in government and want more government action.

Undeniably well received, the speech was also undeniably expected.

President Obama believes that government is the answer to all our problems and although he made a point of stating that he does not believe in bigger government, he never backed away from more government control . In fact three extraordinary government based goals were punctuated in President Obama’s speech. One was for a government run universal health care project that is akin to LBJ’s expansion of social economic welfare in the 60’s.

Another lofty target laid out was the President’s cap and trade regulations on carbon. That well intended environmental goal will revolutionize our economy and produce some economic winners and many losers and, at best negligible, environmental results.

The final foray into change offered by President Obama was his initiatives which would put education in the domain of government and under its control from the elementary level through the college level.

However, in the Republican response to the President, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal reminded us that the strength in America’s future lays not in government but our people.

Acknowledging the fact that Washington must lead, Jindal made it clear that more money and power in the hands of Washington is not leadership.

Despite the trappings of Washington power and the deserved traditional pomp and circumstances of the Presidency, Governor Jindal presented his case under less impressive circumstances than the President, but his message was as resounding as the Presidents.

Governor Jindal addressed the need to stabilize housing markets, increase energy efficiency and the use of alternative energy sources, and the need to grow our economy. But his approach to those efforts did not rely on the government bureaucracy which has proven itself unable to effectively deliver services, monitor itself or act with speed and efficiency.

Having to follow President Obama in a response, Bobby Jindal faced a daunting task. He needed to deliver a response that could appropriately counter the President and although the grandiosity of his oration may not have met the emotional height of President Obama’s, the content did.

One speech relied on the collective will, determination and stamina of the people. The other relied on government replacing individual will, determination and stamina with a bureaucracy.

Jindal’s response was not made an easier by the fact that President Obama is undeniably one of our greatest contemporary political orators Any message that the President delivers is likely to strike a chord in the hearts and minds of citizens. Much the same way that Ronald Reagan did when he ruled the bully pulpit.

Both Obama and Reagan used the bully pulpit quite effectively. The difference between the two though, existed in content.

President Obama uses the bully pulpit to promote government as the key to the success of our people.

President Reagan used the bully pulpit to promote our people as the key to the success of our government.

President Obama sees government as the tool which people are empowered by while President Reagan saw people are the source to any power that the government is given.

It is a point noted when we look at the content of President Obama’s speech.

In it , government is the source of our success. Through incremental moves to socializing medicine, education and industry, under the leadership of President Obama, things will improve. In his speech, the source to a sustainable success is the bureaucracy which has proven itself to be slow, cumbersome, unruly, ineffective and inefficient. We are to believe that a government which can’t control itself or monitor itself is suppose to be the source of our wealth.

This is the same government that operates a postal service that is in the red, and has to increase rates while cutting services.

Yet, according to President Obama, government is the answer.

Bobby Jindal’s response to President Obama stated the opposite and although he lacked the suspense and emotion of the President, the content of his speech spoke to the fact that government bureaucracy holds no candle to the power of a free people. He spoke to the principles that our nation was founded on. The principles that we will have to someday struggle to recapture as we slowly move away from a people driven government to a government driven people.

In his address, governor Jindal stated that where Republicans agree with the President, we “must be his most ardent supporters.” With that I agree. However; I fear that that the President’s incremental adoption of the socialist policies that America has long fought against will provide little opportunity to demonstrate any ardent support.

Bookmark and Share


Governor Bobby Jindal’s Republican response to President Obama




What did Soviet Socialists use before they had candles?
Answer: electricity.




Leave a comment

Filed under politics




Assemblyman Richard Merkt recently proposed to slash the salaries of New Jersey lawmakers by 10%.However, the Assemblyman is a candidate for the Republican gubernatorial nomination and the proposal could be viewed as an election gimmick. Then again, everything that any lawmaker does can be seen as a election gimmick.

In light of the recent pay raise of federal legislators, Merkt’s proposal is a noble one and worth looking at.

So his point is well taken. Times are tough and our representatives should be willing to make sacrifices and at least pretend to be empathetic to the people whose lives they affect.

Besides, lawmakers are partially responsible for any state’s economy including the one we are currently in here in Jersey so they should be more directly effected. I say they are partly responsibly because not everything is their fault. Nature, world events and human stupidity outside of Trenton politics, all play a part. But our lawmakers are elected to both steer us and our state economy in the right direction and to help our state better cope with the situations that we are dealt.

That being the case, it can easily be said that the current state legislature has not done a good job.

New Jersey has led the way in economic trouble over the past few years and under the direction of Governor Jon Corzine, the state legislature has been ill equipped at handling the situation. In fact, together the Democrat controlled state legislature and Democrat Governor have made matters worse.

Together they raised taxes, increased fees made it harder to do business in New Jersey and expanded opportunities for government corruption.

It could be said that Republicans bare no responsibility for this situation since they do not control any branch of state government. I can agree with that but it still doesn’t get Republicans off the hook.

Both parties have failed the people of New Jersey to one degree or another.

Democrats have failed to do anything right and Republicans have failed at convincing anyone that they could do better.

Given these circumstances, I have a more interesting proposal than Assemblyman Merkt’s.

How about we link state legislative and executive salaries to the economy and taxes of the state that they run.

Currently New Jersey State Assembly members and Senators make $49,000 a year.

I say let us reduce those salaries to a base of $41.000 a year and then use the following standard.

  1. For every percent or portion of a percentage that any given legislature raises income and property taxes, their salaries are decreased by 2%. For every percentage or degree of a percentage that they decrease income and property taxes their salaries can be raise by half of one percent.
  2. For every percent or portion of a percentage that they raise a sales or service tax, their salaries also decrease by that same percentage. Conversely, their salaries can be raised by half a percent for every full percent of a decrease in such taxes.
  3. For any new tax created, their salaries are reduced by 2% plus the equivalent percentage of that new tax.
  4. Every toll increase passed during any legislative session is matched by a reduction in legislative salaries that equal to the percentage of that increase.
  5. And finally, state legislative salaries are further reduced by the same number of percentage points that the state’s unemployment rate is whenever it exceeds 4%.

To make it fair. Newly elected legislators would not be held accountable for the taxes and economic situation that any previous legislative session, which they did not have a hand in, was responsible for, and so they would start with the base pay of 41K.

Of course, such measures would not prevent rich people like Governor Jon Corzine from raising fees and taxes, misappropriating funds and offering sweet heart deals to sweethearts like Carla Katz. After all, Corzine took a $400 million golden parachute from Wall Street and doesn’t even accept his salary for Governor but this system could help to make less well off lawmakers work a little harder to address our problems and to fight the wealthy Governor. Having their own pockets linked to what they pick out of ours could just help to make them finally work together for the benefit of themselves as well as us. Maybe such a pay scale system will help to really create a sense of bipartisanship?

Perhaps if the lawmakers of New Jersey had their financial well being directly linked to the state’s financial well being and our own financial opportunities, maybe tax increases and increased fees for everything from driving to landscaping and joining a gym will be viewed as a last resort. Like it should be.

Perhaps by immediately linking their decisions directly to their own incomes, they may better empathize with the financial impact that they bring to bare on those they are representing .

You could say that it is not fair to those who vote against penalizing taxes or policies that drive businesses away and raise the unemployment in the state. That might be so, but, those who simply voted against something are still culpable. They have more than a responsibility to vote against such measures. They have the responsibility of leadership and the responsibility of making their case and doing it so well that a preponderance of people in the state as well as the legislature are persuaded by their arguments. They must convince people why others are wrong and they are right. Failing to do so is a failure that they share in common with those who support regressive economic policies.

So Assemblyman Merkt’s proposed 10 % reduction in salary is nice.

It is certainly going in a direction far better than the 2.8% pay increase that Congress is willing to take, at of all times, now. But the gesture Merkt is making could be made more meaningful and be more enduring. By linking legislative salaries to their actions we are adding a new incentive to politics and a new level of innovation……..political merit pay. If you do a good job and keep a good economy going you get paid better.

Is this crazy?

Maybe it is. Maybe it is as far fetched as a State Senator taking money from a no show job given to him by a school funded with state money that the same State Senator helped procure with tax payer dollars that he helped get through the state legislature. Maybe this political merit pay scale sounds just as crazy as that same corrupt State Senator getting his state funded pension after ripping the state off and being convicted.

But just like former *Senator Wayne Bryant, it may sound crazy but it could be true if like Wayne Bryant, we just did it.


*Wayne Bryant pressured officials of University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey  to create a no-show job  that  allowed him to lobby himsef’ for taxpayer funds. Bryant also chaired the Senate Appropriations comittee which Funneled large sums of taxpayers dollare to UMDNJ.

RedWhiteBlue.gif picture by kempite


Be Sure To Sign The Petition To


Sign the Online Petition – Repeal The Automatic Pay Raise That Congress Is Receiving

Pass The Link On To Family, Friends and Co-workers


RedWhiteBlue.gif picture by kempite




RedWhiteBlue.gif picture by kempite


I was talking to a friend of mine’s little girl the other day.

I asked her what she wanted to be when she grew up and she replied, 

I want to be President!” 

Both of her parents are liberal Democrats and were standing there. So then I asked her, “If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?”

She replied, “I’d give houses to all the homeless people.” 

“Wow – what a worthy goal.” I told her, “You don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where this homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward a new house.” 

Since she is only 6, she thought that over for a few seconds. While her Mom glared at me, she looked me straight in the eye and asked,

“Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?” 

And I said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.” 

Her folks still aren’t talking to me.

 Submitted by Dick, Williamsport, Md

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Ask Not What Your Country Can Spend For You. Ask What You Can Spend For Your Country

PhotobucketI am no economist but in reviewing the assessments and suggestions of major economists there seems to be some very valid suggestions, at least from what a layman like me can understand.

Despite my lack of economic expertise, I do know the basic fundamentals of the economy and I believe my understanding of those fundamentals is what can sometimes create some confusion when reviewing the advice of so called financial experts and leading economic government officials.

All the suggestions offered by them are based on spending.

Spending is what grows our economy. The more we consume and spend, the more that is produced. The more that is produced increases the need to employ more people to meet those production needs. By employing more people we are empowering others to spend more and from there the cycle continues in an ever growing circumference of increased wealth.

Sounds pretty simple. Yet other factors help to complicate things and break the seemingly simple and free flow of this cycle. Things such as unexpected shortages of materials, import and export troubles, natural disasters which influence the chain of events, and many more all factor in the process.

While understanding this, what is responsible for the current economic crisis?

Has there been some sort of natural disaster that has depleted a particular basic and essential resource that our economic cycle relies on? Has there been a total collapse of certain industries which have thrown the cycle off with an inordinate amount of unemployment and consumption which further deteriorate the supply and demand cycle?

To a certain, small extent, events like that have taken place but not in some kind of all consuming way. There have been droughts effecting crops and downturns in some markets that have produced layoffs. But none have been to the extent which has, for example, made wheat crops extinct or stopped cars from being made.

So what’s the problem?

Well in my unprofessional, economic, opinion, the problem is rooted in something that government financial experts are not discussing. In fact, in my opinion, most solutions being initiated by government officials, past, present and future, are the problem. They are trying to put icing on a cake before they baked it. They all promote spending.

In tune with the laws of supply and demand, spending is good. However; the focus on spending has been accentuated and promoted so much and for so long that it has brought about a couple of misguided generations that have taken that advice too far.

As a society we have become accustomed to spending more than we have, and responsibly. should.

The predatory promotional practices that financial markets undertake ,in an attempt to make more money of their own, is a big part of the current economic crisis. It is a crisis brought about by the chickens coming home to roost and the bill coming forward to be paid.

We have taken the advice of Republican and Democrat leaders and we have spent. The government has even taken their own advice and spends. The government has spent money in order to give us money to spend with. They call it an economic stimulus. The problem though is that

  1. The government doesn’t really have enough money to do that. They have their own, our own, deficit, and…….
  2. The money they gave us back in this so called stimulus package was ours, so maybe they should have taken less from us in the first place.

Those two points alone raise doubts about the soundness of the “spending solution” given to all of our problems. Yet, those in charge still offer it as the most sound solution to our problems. They even go a step further and ask people to not save any of the monies given out in stimulus packages.

Although I do not have a problem with spending,………. all you have to do is tag along with me at clothing or shoe store to realize that,….. I do have problem with spending money that we don’t have. And there in lies the problem.

The promoting of spending practices has created generations of spenders. These spenders don’t even use real money. They use plastic. We all use plastic. In some instances you can’t even pay for a good or service without credit.

This has led to our getting accustomed with living on borrowed money,……. plastic,……..fake money.

For decades now, the government has encouraged this practice. Government policies have encouraged borrowers and lenders to enter into deals that neither can really afford. The greatest example of this was the Homeownership Initiative that was created under the Clinton administration. It forced lenders to make a significant number of loans available to unqualified borrowers, borrowers who could not pay these loans back. The practice was so popular that it helped to create the banking crisis that ushered in the current crisis.

The promoted “spending” solutions that have dominated our problem solving efforts with the economy are, in and of themself, part of the problem.

Americans need to get back to an economy that is based on sound fiscal policies. That statement brings into play many suggested economic theories and actions but when I write “sound fiscal policies” I am not making reference to some deep epistemology of mankind or the ontology of finances. Nor am I debating the importance of the Keynesian school of thought. I am simply saying that society…..our citizens, needs to begin living within its means.

If one is not sure if they have enough money to put food on their plate, they should not be buying cell phones and using it to send out text messages asking if they can borrow money for dinner. I mean I am sure AT&T or T-Mobile appreciate the fee that your purchase and contracts will cost you but you will they be pleased with the bill collector that they have to employ to get their money.

My point is, we have gotten away from living within our means. We have become accustomed with living life on borrowed money. This practice has brought us to where we are today. And truth be told, there is no end in site.

I believe that we are about to enter a very tough transitional time that will last for many years. It is a time that will have us getting familiar with living within our means.

Doing so will mean less spending. Less spending will lead to less employment, and so on and so on. But this does not mean that the sky will fall and the economy will ultimately implode. It means that we will endure a difficult adjustment period but once we have become reacquainted with real money, sound personal financial habits and living within our means, the economy will eventually stabilize and growth will again be seen.

I am not alone in this thinking. Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson has recently made a video addressing this same issue. In it, he takes a tongue-in-cheek approach to our current “spending solutions”.

Take a moment to view it. You’ll get a kick out of it. It left me wondering where the Fred Thompson, that we see in this video, was when he ran for the G.O.P.’s presidential nomination?



Post Election Toast

The Election Is Over, The Results Are Known.

The Will of the People Has Been Clearly Shown.

So Let All Get Together And Let Bitterness Pass

I’ll Hug Your Elephant, And You Kiss My Ass.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics


First there was “Girls Gone Wild” and their countless sequels. Then came “Boys Gone Wild” and even “Guys Gone Wild” and their continuous stream of subsequent follow ups. Volume after volume of guys and girls baring it all for hordes of horny, voyeurs hoping to satisfy their lusts through store bought compact discs.

Well hold on to your pants folks. Brace yourself for the newest edition of the “Gone Wild” series.

It’s “Liberals Gone Wild” and you wont have to call a 1-800 number and charge $19.95 for it with your credit card. All you have to do is vote for Barack Obama on Election Day and it will satisfy the lust of liberals all across the land. Their lusts. Lusts for bigger government and higher taxes. Their lusts for negotiating with terrorists and deciding America’s fate based on the opinions of the United Nations.

By simply voting for Barack Obama on Election Day all of this and more can be yours but it’s not free. It comes with a hefty price. It’s also broken. Liberals Gone Wild is not something you can turn off. You can’t just pop it out of your compact disc player and play something else. Liberals Gone Wild will stay on and run amuck, unimpeded and uninterrupted for at least two years.

 Once your vote for Obama buys you a copy of Liberals Gone Wild, you will be revealing more than bare breasts or swinging schlongs , you’ll be revealing the naked truth of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the nations liberal leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives, and the revelation is not very attractive.

Their scantily clad objectives are not filled with any titillating sights or actions. The naked truth of their socialist agenda simply sets our nation on a course that is so radical and so closely aligned with socialism that our nation’s government will have more in common with Cuba than any of the intended principles of our own nation’s constitution.

In the past that constitution has insured that America’s greatest strength was always in it’s people.

Individual Americans have been the impetus to our success and history is strewn with examples of how our people’s sense of drive and responsibility won the day for us. Even when our nation faced it’s greatest challenges, any successful directions offered by our government was only made successful if and when the people were behind it. Yet, by voting for Barack Obama, we are essentially making it clear that we want the bureaucracy of a government to decide all that we should decide for ourselves.

Despite the importance of individuality and independent initiative and entrepreneurial spirit, Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have confidently and consistently pushed an agenda that attempts to legislate everything from the educational choices, quality and opportunities of our children to how much money can be made in the private sector. Their sense of fairness dictates that all must suffer the consequences of government fiats.

Since they took control of congress almost two years ago their efforts to adopt their socialist agenda have been stymied, to a point. Their small majorities were not large enough to totally steamroll the principles of freedom that Americans have come to appreciate.

But all that is about to change. By elevating the most liberal member of the government’s collective, elected leadership to the presidency, Barack Obama will make it possible for the combined socialist agenda of his liberal comrades to prevail. With Obama at the helm, Pelosi and Reid will have no obstacles.

Their class warfare will rage on and personal success will be treated as a goal that needs to be penalized in an attempt to “spread the wealth”. Beyond that, in this Obama, Pelosi and Reid, special edition of Liberals Gone Wild, the successful in America are blamed for the conditions of the less successful. They are put forth as the enemy and the source of all that ails people and government.

On top of their class warfare games, the far left menage-a-tois of Obama, Pelosi and Reid will rejuvenate failed policies of the past as false keys to a better tomorrow. Initiatives such as Jimmy Carter’s, 1977 Community Reinvestment Act and Bill Clinton‘s expansion of that in the form of the American Homeownership Initiative will not simply be reformed, they will be expanded. This will be done despite the fact that both programs helped to create the current banking crisis by forcing banks to engage in risky lending practices to those who could not afford to pay back such loans.

Together the trio will swear to move us into energy independence while they restrict the independence of participants in the market and make it impossible to drill for domestic sources of energy or limit the exploration for such natural resources.

Unchecked and in total control, the liberal Axis of Idiocy will implement the most liberal agenda we have ever seen. From expanding the current burgeoning government bureaucracy by raising taxes and making it more expensive to operate to increasing risks to our national security, liberals will be like children locked in a candy shop after the doors have closed and the staff has gone home. Even before their lies achieve any confirmed coup of liberal dominance, this trio has already begun to conspire over a trillion dollars of new spending. New spending that will be funded by the millions of Americans whom they wish to control. A control that they hope to have by legislating everything from our opinions and ways of thinking to the medical treatment available to us.

This liberal Axis will allow for the unimpeded approval of liberal justices who want to write law rather than interpret law. This goes not only for the selection of one or maybe even two supreme court justices, it involves thousands of judicial appointments that are given to a President after congressional approval. Approval that Pelosi and Reid will reinforce so long as Obama’s appointments pass the proper liberal litmus tests.

We are about to enter dangerous territory. It is the same type of territory that Republicans entered when in 2000 they added the White House to the list of government branches that they controlled.

After almost 6 years of total control, Republicans unchecked power allowed them to become complacent. The lack of true competition in government philosophies allowed them to stray away from their own intended missions. The power went to their heads and they paid a price for it. They lost in 2006. The cycle is about to repeat itself. Liberals will be in total control. The far fetched initiatives of their far left leadership will now become a staple of American government. The extremist policies of Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Ted Kennedy, Dennis Kucinich, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and other liberal icons are now about to become mainstream, American government policies. It will be a tough two years. And it will take at least 3 times as long to recover from, but it will done.

When America sees liberals in action, the full effect of liberals who are not held back in any way, they will quickly resort to change, yet again. Just like in 1994, when two years of a government led by liberals in the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate caused the electorate to put the breaks on that. If Obama does actually somehow convince Americans that he can do more than run for higher offices, and elect him President, they will undoubtedly correct that course quickly too. Hopefully the damage done by them in two years can be in fact corrected quickly. The only problem there is that we can not afford a damaging blow to our national security. When it comes to our nation’s security, it only takes one mistake to cost us more than we can afford.

Hopefully it will not take something so drastic to teach us a lesson . Something like the national security crisis that Joe Biden swears we will encounter if Barack Obama is elected President. It is not a risk I am willing to take. That is one reason why John McCain has my support. It is one reason why I am not willing to hand over the entirety of our government to a group of people who, for the last two years have, provided one of the most unproductive legislative sessions in recent history. It is just one among many reasons but it is one of the most important reasons.

4 Doctors Talk Politics!

An Israeli doctor said, “Medicine in my country is so advanced, we can take a kidney out of one person, put it in another and have him looking for work in six weeks.”

A German doctor said “That’s nothing! In Germany, we can take a lung out of one person, put it in another and have him looking for work in four weeks.”

A Russian doctor said, “In my country, medicine is so advanced, we can take half a heart from one person, put it in another and have them both looking for work in two weeks.”

The American doctor, not to be outdone, said “Hah! We are about to take an asshole out of Illinois, put him in the White House and half the country will be looking for work the next day.”


Filed under politics


I have to apologize here from the get go. The other night my partner Nick, and I went out to a local diner for a quick bite to eat. We were seated at a booth in between a group of four behind me and a group of three senior citizens behind Nick. While perusing the menu my ears caught the phrase “I don’t like Obama”. It came from one of the ladies in the group sitting behind Nick .

Being preoccupied by politics, certain buzz words like election, President, McCain, or Obama, catch my attention even when I am not paying attention.

So this older woman’s utterance of the word “Obama” lit up my on my radar screen. Even though it may have been impolite to pay attention to a conversation not involving me, I couldn’t help myself.

So I apologize for any impolite eavesdropping, that I may be guilty of. It wasn’t my intent but I’m a political junkie, and as such, this election season is for me what Christmas is to a wide eyed, little boy.  It’s like the Super Bowl to football fans and I am just in tune to any references to politics. Besides, to put it nicely, this woman was not using her inside voice. So curiosity got the best of me and I paid attention to the political opinion that was unfolding.

The woman went on to say “I don’t like Obama but he’s got my vote”. The woman explained further “those Republicans are only for the rich and big business”

At this point the waitress came over to take the orders of Nick and I. Being distracted, I let my partner order first and I than quickly determined what I wanted. With my attention taken off of the conversation that I was not a part of, Nick and I started our own banter.

When the waitress returned with our drink orders, both Nick and myself happened to hear that same woman I overheard earlier say “and that “McCann”, “he just wants to give tax breaks to big companies”. At this point I had just begun to take a sip of my Pepsi with lemon and no ice when she continued “and who are those big businesses to make as much money as they do. They shouldn’t be allowed to make that much money in the first place”.

Upon hearing that , I gagged on my soda. Having caught that remark from right behind him, Nick knew what the cause of my discomfort was.

We were about to eat and after having heard what I just heard, I could not allow myself to pay any further attention and still be able to stomach the meal I was about to eat.

Nick knew my blood pressure was rising and quickly tried to establish our own conversation and provide a diversion from that which had me fuming. Our food came and we discussed the details of the event we were heading out to DJ.

Through it all, I could not help but allow the words of that woman to echo in my head. I couldn’t stop wondering if she actually knew what she said. Did she really believe, that in America, people should only be allowed to make a certain amount of money? Did she actually believe Democrat talking points and accept them as the truth?

I thought to myself, how little this woman really knew and how misinformed she was. Yet, despite her lack of understanding , awareness and information, she threw her words out with total conclusiveness and decisiveness. This is a woman who referred to John McCain as “John McCann”. She didn’t even know his name yet she acted like a brilliant sage who proclaimed Republicans are only for the rich and that businesses should only be allowed to make a certain amount of money.

What this woman neglected to realize was that Republicans and “John McCann” do not believe in penalizing success. They do not support limiting opportunity or making our government some type of communist politburo that does everything from control your wages to determining what, how and where your children are educated. She didn’t understand that Republicans were not for the rich or sponsors of class warfare but that they didn’t believe in penalizing success or taxation that goes so far that it taxes the dead and buried. This bitter, jealous woman could not wrap her head around the fact that “John McCann” is not trying to keep her down but that he is trying to prevent government from holding her back.

All these thoughts raced through my mind as Nick and I ate and as I tried to focus on our own discussion.

We chatted away and finished up our meal but in the back of my head I could not stop thinking about how gullible this woman was. She actually believed in the liberal bumper sticker slogans and campaign catch phrases that promoted liberal socialist policies in brightly colored wrapping paper and big ribbons and bows. She admitted that she didn’t even like Barack Obama. Yet because he was a Democrat and since they were against the rich, she was for them.

Beyond angering me, it worried me. I worried about how many more people in America held her thinking and how many despised the free market that comes with our democracy? How many Americans were actually supporting socialism and wanted to adopt it as our way of life?

With our meal finished, I got up before Nick to find our waitress. I put on my McCain-Palin jacket, prominently, found the waitress and asked her for not only my check but for the check of the people at the table behind Nick. I told her that I wanted to pay for it. The waitress was taken back for a moment and said “Oh, Ok, here ya go”. After paying and getting my change, I asked if she could give me a blank dinner check to write a message on and that she could give to the customers I paid for. She handed one to me and I wrote:


“Dear Fellow Americans;
I paid your check.
I did so because this is still America and in it I can still make as much as my ambition, skill, and willingness to make allows. In it I am also still allowed to keep enough of it so that I can spend as much of it as I want and on what I want. If Barack Obama is elected he will determine all that for me. So enjoy my generosity while you can because if you get your way, we will all be losing our own ways.

P.S.: John McCain is the man trying to preserve democracy. Tom McCann is the company you buy your shoes from.”

Upon leaving the diner with Nick, and after paying for more meals than I expected, just to make a point, I realized that just like the government should do, I too should mind my own business.

After reading POLITICS 24/7‘s post on Keith Olbermann, conservative talk show host Tim Conway, Jr., has booked it’s author, Anthony Del Pellegrino on it’s show Thursday, October 23rd at 9:15 pm (pst).

For east coasters thats 12:15 am, which technically makes it Friday, October 24th for us.

But regardless, east coast, west coast and everyone in between, I hope you call in with your two cents. 

In fact, if you are a conservative put a bucks worth in.

I hope to hear from you. 




Nights in Southern California are always brighter with Tim Conway Jr. weeknights from 8PM – 11PM.

Conway is in his 11th year at 97.1, treating Los Angeles to a wide variety of topics ranging from ‘LIVE’ Police Chases to the ‘World of Entertainment.’ With Tim’s amazing sense of humor (that he obviously acquired from his mother’s side), listeners know that they’ll always learn something and smile at the same time!

Tim Conway Jr. was born and raised in Southern California; living in the San Fernando Valley. He attended Portola Junior High in Tarzana and finished his education in Van Nuys graduating in 1981 from Birmingham High. His down-to-earth humor brings a sense of refreshing levity to all of us surrounded by lunatics in Southern California.

The Tim Conway Jr. Show is designed ot help Southern California wind down after a hellish day avoiding bullets on the local freeways. Conway hosts the longest running radio game show ever Thursday night at 8PM, “What the Hell Did Jesse Jackson Say?” Conway also features the David Letterman “Top 10 List,” an exclusive audio recap of one of TV’s hottest benchmarks.

The Tim Conway Jr. Show…the new and improved comedy talk show in town and the only place ot find out what’s going on in this crazy city of ours! Weeknights from 8PM to 11PM…only on 97.1 the FM Talk Station

punchline politics

  A Quickie 

One day George W. Bush and Dick Cheney walk into a diner. A waitress walks up to them and asks if she can take their order. Bush leans close to her and says, “Honey, can I have a quickie?”

The waitress is appalled and yells at the President about women’s rights and storms away.

Cheney then says to Bush, “George, its pronounced ‘quiche’.”



Filed under politics