Two days ago, the Democrat hacks on Beacon Hill rejected a bill which would have required the state to confirm the citizenship of anyone receiving any form of welfare benefits. The vote was suprisingly close. Who were some of the hacks who voted to allow the fraud to continue? Tax cheats, naturally. And a lot of them.
The House vote to crack down on illegals on welfare was much closer than before – 82-75. A lot of Democrats can hear the footsteps – taxpayers’ footsteps.
But the illegals and their hack enablers won, and as I study the transcript on the debate, I see the only words you need to understand the debate: “Rep. Cabral yielded (to) Rep. Swan.”
Those were the two guys double-teaming the taxpayers on behalf of illegals. What a coincidence that Rep. Cabral, who was born in the Azores, once had a lien placed on his house for nonpayment of income taxes. He decided to hand off to Rep. Ben Swan of Springfield, who has likewise forgotten to pay both his income taxes and his real-estate property taxes.
The Republicans were mentioning Obama’s illegal-alien Auntie Zeituni, and how she’s in public housing in Southie. Deadbeat Cabral felt compelled to defend her.
The solon sniffed. “When you apply for asylum, you qualify for public benefits until that decision is made.”
Asylum – that’s what you apply for if you’re an illegal alien looking to go on welfare but you’re too old to drop an anchor baby.
Here are some other Democrats who voted the pro-illegal line. Rep. Marie St. Fleur, notorious tax deadbeat from Boston who is angling for a six-figure City Hall job from Mumbles Menino. Rep. Byron Rushing of the South End, who failed to file income taxes in 2002, and in the years between 1990 and 1995. Rep. David Linsky of Natick, a non-filer in 2002 and 2003. Rep. Anne Gobi of Spencer, didn’t file in 2002 and 2003 . . .
Reporters say the White House is thin-skinned, controlling, eager to go over their heads and stingy with even basic information. All White Houses try to control the message. But this White House has pledged to be more open than its predecessors – and reporters feel it doesn’t live up to that pledge in several key areas:
— Day-to-day interaction with Obama is almost non-existent, and he talks to the press corps far less often than Bill Clinton or even George W. Bush did. Clinton took questions nearly every weekday, on average. Obama barely does it once a week.
— The ferocity of pushback is intense. A routine press query can draw a string of vitriolic emails. A negative story can draw a profane high-decibel phone call – or worse. Some reporters feel like they’ve been frozen out after crossing the White House.
— Except for a few reporters, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs can be distant and difficult to reach – even though his job is to be one of the main conduits from president to press. “It’s an odd White House where it’s easier to get the White House chief of staff on the phone than the White House press secretary,” one top reporter said.
— And at the very moment many reporters feel shut out, one paper – the New York Times – enjoys a favoritism from Obama and his staff that makes competitors fume, with gift-wrapped scoops and loads of presidential face-time.
And he hasn’t held a press conference in over ten months. The next one should be very interesting.
Not only did Obama’s Spring Revival Tent Tour fail at swaying public opinion…it reaffirmed opposition to his “health care” law.
Support for repeal of the recently-passed national health care plan remains strong as most voters believe the law will increase the cost of care, hurt quality and push the federal budget deficit even higher.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of likely voters nationwide favor repeal, while 38% are opposed. Those figures are little changed from a week ago and include 47% who Strongly Favor repeal. Twenty-nine percent (29%) Strongly Oppose the repeal effort.
Support for repeal is proving to be just as consistent as opposition to the plan before it was passed into law. Over the past five weeks since Congress passed the measure, support for repeal has remained in a very narrow range from a low of 54% to a high of 58%.
Sixty percent (60%) of voters nationwide believe the new law will increase the federal budget deficit, while just 19% say it will reduce the deficit.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) think the law will increase the cost of health care, while 18% believe it will reduce costs.
Rush Limbaugh dismantles the concerted liberal effort to paint tea party rallies as the gateway to another Oklahoma City.
The latest liberal meme is to equate skepticism of the Obama administration with a tendency toward violence. That takes me back 15 years ago to the time President Bill Clinton accused “loud and angry voices” on the airwaves (i.e., radio talk-show hosts like me) of having incited Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. What self-serving nonsense. Liberals are perfectly comfortable with antigovernment protest when they’re not in power.
From the halls of the Ivy League to the halls of Congress, from the antiwar protests during the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq to the anticapitalist protests during International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings, we’re used to seeing leftist malcontents take to the streets. Sometimes they’re violent, breaking shop windows with bricks and throwing rocks at police. Sometimes there are arrests. Not all leftists are violent, of course. But most are angry. It’s in their DNA. They view the culture as corrupt and capitalism as unjust.
Now the liberals run the government and they’re using their power to implement their radical agenda. Mr. Obama and his party believe that the election of November 2008 entitled them to make permanent, “transformational” changes to our society. In just 16 months they’ve added more than $2 trillion to the national debt, essentially nationalized the health-care system, the student-loan industry, and have their sights set on draconian cap-and-trade regulations on carbon emissions and amnesty for illegal aliens.
Had President Obama campaigned on this agenda, he wouldn’t have garnered 30% of the popular vote.
If you truly love the Earth, then you must learn how to make eco-friendly, sustainable love.
Put another way … green sex.
That’s the message from writer Stefanie Iris Weiss, who’s pushing the Prius version of l’amore to a nation hooked on Hummer love.
“EcoSex: Go Green Between the Sheets and Make Your Love Life Sustainable” is all about getting warm without the global warming guilt.
What, you thought the act of love was as natural as it gets? Au contraire!
“Hormone-based birth control is a landmine of horribleness,” the Manhattan-based author said. “It’s bad for the body, and marine life. Hormones get excreted into the water, and fish are becoming hermaphrodites.”
For women, she recommends IUDs, and for men, seek out “fair-trade” latex condoms that give the Third World a little love.
Imagine the scene:
Woman: “Is that a fair trade condom?”
Woman: “Sorry, I am commited to having only green sex”