Racists and Sons of Bitches - Barack Obama's Change We Can Believe In

"I love you, you old son-of-a-bitch."

When I sat down to write this article on Labor Day it was ahead of the curve. The campaign event that the "hope and change" President appeared at had just concluded and the news that the union thug Jimmy Hoffa* had just declared war on so called Tea Partiers and called for "Taking the son-of-a-bitches out" had just been broken on the Internet.

I knew I had to write fast because everyone with a keypad would soon be turning out articles full of righteous indignation about what the moron said and I hate to be just another of those who jump on the same old news story bandwagon. I always want to be the first one on the bandwagon even though I have never seen an actual bandwagon or even know precisely what it is.

But after being sidetracked by a much more important activity yesterday, a golf game with the eldest of the two bash brothers, I lost that chance. Now the stories are everywhere, and I mean everywhere. However, having already written the catchy title above, I need to put something out in order to have a sense of completion.

So here is my main bitch about being called a son-of-a-bitch. It's not the name calling, I have no particular problem with that. In fact I do it myself all the time, like the above example when I accurately called the Teamsters President a moron. I call people like him even worse things in private conversations all the time.

My bitch is about the son-of-a-bitch who is the American President and the bastards he works with. (Gee, isn't this fun?) That particular son-of-a-bitch told us Tea Bagger son-of-a-bitches that he would be a President of Civility and stop all the name calling and charged rhetoric. He told us that it was a change we could believe in.

In the last few weeks I have been told to go to hell by one of his son-of-a-bitches in congress and told that I wanted to hang black people from trees by another of his son-of-a-bitches in congress because I am a son-of-a-bitch Tea Bagger. All of those things happened without a word from the "change" President. In fact, he has not only remained silent about these events but has so far specifically refused to condemn them.

I'm not shocked and I can't imagine you are either. In fact, our country has a long history of name calling and refusals by Presidents to condemn it when it is targeted against their political opponents. I love history even if I don't like all of the sons-of-bitches in it. The supporters of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson called each other's candidates a lot of horrible things without so much as a peep from those great leaders, so history is on Obama's side.

So I dare any of the lefties who (don't) read this blog to call me out for bad language and disrespectfulness of others with whom I disagree. They wouldn't dare, would they? They wouldn't have the audacity to do so.

They would? Well, I'll be a son-of-a-bitch.......


  * not to be confused with his father the union/mob thug of the same name who was murdered by his gangster co-workers.

Union Busting, It's Not Just For Republicans Anymore

By Grant Davies

Some of us semi-older types can remember back when Ronald Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers so that one small group of people could not hold the entire country hostage to their demands. In my mind it was one of the most decisive and rational acts of any Presidency.

It was also called "union busting" by the progressives of that day, but they couldn't get any political traction on it because the vast majority of the country was squarely behind the President, including many if not most of the rank and file Democrats of that day.

Unionists were shrieking as usual, but most of the people were in no mood for nonsense back then. We were trying to recover from yet another big government caused recession, coupled with massive inflation. (also caused by government meddling) Unemployment was extremely high, which also explained the country's lack of empathy for those poor downtrodden controllers who actually had well paying jobs.

Against the backdrop of that history, and the more recent history of the unionists rally/riots in Wisconsin, came the news last week that Chicago's new mayor, Rahm Emanuel, has decided to bust the public sector unions in his jurisdiction.

Some may protest that statement as hyperbole, but I would make the case that it is an accurate description of what Mayor Dead Fish has announced he will do. The headline in the Chicago Tribune on June 30th reads: "Emanuel to Unions: OK cuts or be laid off."

The story goes on to accurately describe the mayor's message to the city hall union workers as a threat. According to the story he told them that "unless they get on board quickly with the "money saving changes" to their jobs", he would fire 625 of them.

In plain terms, he is setting the rules and if they don't like it, out they go. Same as any other ultimatum from an employer in a company that doesn't have a union. Hmm, it's like there is no union. If that isn't union busting, then the term needs to be redefined. (To be clear, I support the approach.)

The point of all this is to demonstrate that when Democratic politicians recognise that the gig is up and make needed cuts, they are called "money saving changes and adjustments." But when Republicans do the same they are said to be "slashing and burning" all the things that made America great. (Freedom is what made America great, but that's to be argued in a different commentary.)

It's only politics and I have no sympathy for the Republicans. But unless we understand the game, we are just being played instead of watching with our finger on the ballot trigger while those that craft these images go about the business of enriching themselves with our taxes.

In Massachusetts, a state run entirely by liberals (of both parties), a law which is eerily similar to the one which caused union thugs to go ballistic in "cheese land" was passed by Democrats with nary a peep from the liberal press. It seems it was just common sense out East while it was union busting and teacher bashing back in the Midwest.

And now in the windy city, it's going to be hailed as good, sound, realistic money management by a hard knuckled whiz kid with close ties to a President who some of the more starry eyed among us hailed as the hope of the ages.

Barack Obama has proved his loyalty to the hands that fed him his election victory by handing them the keys to the company at government owned auto companies while exempting them from his socialized medicine scheme. But here in Chi-town his first lieutenant is a full fledged union buster.

And I'm OK with that.

Liar, Liar, Your Car's On Fire

When I was a kid the rhyme was about your pants being on fire, but since Obama (and his economic mentor GWB before him) hasn't bailed out any clothing companies, the ditty had to be changed a bit.

Our guest columnist Wes Messamore ran a piece yesterday on his excellent blog The Humble Libertarian about the lies being told by Obamanocchio concerning the bailout of union thugs and the idiot management at Chrysler and Government Motors. There were quite a few whoppers, as usual.

And Wes wasn't the only one who noticed. The Washington Post ran a story  pointing out all the semi-clever deceptions and half truths that splintered off Geppetto's wooden President in Ohio last week while mysteriously courting the only people who will never turn their backs on him at election time.

I'm not a political wizard but I find it odd that candidate Obama would spend time trying to convince unionists to vote for him when they are already a sure thing. But he tricked the children once already so who am I to question his tactics?

One thing is certain, the puppet master for our needle-nosed leader is none other than the unions he bailed out with your money. When he told Joe the plumber he wanted to spread the wealth around, poor old Joe probably thought he meant transferring it from rich to poor, not from the non-union worker to the union worker.

Maybe Joe should have aspired to build electric cars that no one buys instead of fixing toilets that always have to be flushed twice.