Landrieu is a bigger threat than me

Landrieu is a bigger threat than me, for sure. Here, look:

This morning’s Advocate brings me the distressing news that Senator Mary Landrieu only gives “grudging support” to the not raising taxes. Sure, it’s talked about like it’s a “tax cut.” But it’s not. It’s “not raising taxes.” And this poor gal is not happy with not raising taxes. For she knows how to help families and small businesses – by taking their money. She’s pictured with the palatial opulence of the interior of the Capitol above her. I think that’s part of the problem – the opulence. It looks like Versailles. Perhaps we should move Congress to a warehouse in Wichita, so they might think about what they do, and not whom they are.

I’m sure she’s upset too that a judge struck down the key provision of the “health-care” law. Which the Advocate reports about. But I don’t seem to find comment from Landrieu on this issue. Indeed, even the White House, proud sponsor of the law, only allowed “a senior administration official” to speak without name. That’s transparency, I guess. Of an opaque kind. It certainly isn’t putting one’s light upon the basket. Though it’s not quite quiet charity, as befits the command of Jesus: do good works without bleating about it. Though a law with only bureaucrats and taxes cannot be about healthcare. Healthcare is hospitals, doctors, nurses, labs etc. Not who’s going to control them. And ObamaCare, which Landrieu voted for, is about control of healthcare, not about healthcare itself.

And Landrieu supposedly obtained $300,000,000 for healthcare in Louisiana. That was all the rage for why she voted for the unconstitutional bill. And there among the mush of the Advocate is how Governor Jindal and the Legislature are squabbling over a paltry $13,000,000 in cuts to actual hospitals, doctors and nurses. And I see not Mary’s name there to give her take on this unfortunate situation. And I wonder why the Advocate couldn’t see how the three things are related.

Her tax hikes will create more poverty, as all tax hikes do. Can’t make a man richer by taking away his money. And he will strive no harder to get more to be taken. And so there will be poor people who need succor, which is being argued about. And the unconstitutional law befuddles the issue, for it might make no difference what conclusion Jindal and legislators make if they are making it based upon the law. And where is that $300,000,000 already? And so the inner-connectedness of all this is what is the problem.

This conflation of too many laws, too many bureaucrats, too many taxes, too much taxes, too many rules and regulations – all conspire to suck the lifeblood out of the economy, the nation, and from families. This overbearing government confabulation is the true threat to families. Increasing the deficit is the real threat. The new childhood nutrition Act – the bizarrely named “Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 – I mean really – we have fat kids in this country who are hungry too? Can kids be both fat and hungry? Maybe it’s good that the closest supermarket is 10 blocks away – might make the fat kids walk, so they burn off a few pounds, eh? And so the bill is to fight hunger among the fat – and the president says it with a straight face. And he proudly notes that “also increases spending per meal by about 6 cents.” Well, that might be an extra few grains of rice, you think? Or perhaps a leaf of lettuce. I don’t know.

Meanwhile a bunch of nobodies launch “No Labels” as a political force to reckon with. Or is it, um, just losers and politicians like Mayor Mike Bloomberg who are simply going no where. Hard to say what policy proscriptions they have except to vote with the socialists, since that’s what they do. But I guess if it’s not called socialism it isn’t. Perhaps not even progressivism. Just no label, like the old Pathmark Supermarket chain’s house brand. No Label. I remember it well, I was in charge of the No Label aisle at the Pathmark on Stillwell Ave in Coney Island. Yep, maybe that’s where Bloomberg got the name. The big placard behind each fool is pretty close to what I remember. Is this copyright infringement? Are you thinking, Pathmark?

And the Advocate tells me that a man stabbed his parents in New York. His mother dead, and his father in critical care. I doubt it’s a gay guy. We don’t do this sort of thing. Just another screaming hetero on a murderous rampage. Though I think, since we don’t do murder well, we gay folks, the newly filed lawsuit against DADT. I wish they hadn’t brought it in San Francisco. I wish they would have done it in Kansas City or something. I think that the whole policy should be repealed. Not necessarily because I think gays should or could be in the military. Apparently many already are, but not too many. But because lying is not a part of honor, and honor is the core of the military. For you must have honorable people to do what the military does. No, I’d keep out any way too peaceful gay guy because most of us probably couldn’t carry a 50 backpack very far. And we probably can’t shoot straight. So keep up the standards. And if by some miracle a few of us can do the job, well, then that shouldn’t be a problem. And the military is more than capable, and duty bound even, to find the right jobs for the right people. And perhaps gay soldiers make lousy foxhole troops because were too gentle, but we might well be capable of serving in the marching band and back at the supply base. And I’m pretty sure if the military can move 100,000 soldiers and all their equipment halfway around the world, they can figure out where in the vast mechanism of this process a gay soldier might do his job for the nation he or she loves as much as anyone.

But it’s Landrieu – with her unread laws, with her connivance with Obama, with her desire for more taxes on everything and everybody, and her lounging around with socialists – she’s the bigger threat than I ever was to this nation and its families. And someone should tell Tony Perkins and his pals that, and then perhaps they might redirect their efforts to the true trouble and not at me for paying my taxes and not causing too much of a ruckus other than admiring a man in Speedos once a year at a parade for liberty and to celebrate the end of the police state against a tiny minority.

Of which, I note, in William Bennett’s new “American Patriot Almanac” — where in which he catalogs every single utterance for expanded liberty this nation ever has heard – he found no place for even a brief mention in a footnote that some few thousand gay folks one day in June, 1969 said “Don’t Tread On Us!” Apparently our little hissy fit for our liberty wasn’t patriotic or something. Oh well, maybe in the next edition. After Mr. Bennett comes upon one of the hundreds of Liberty Parades held each year in the most peaceful and longest running political protest the world has known.

That’s if we can keep them up, what with all the Democrat’s tax schemes screwing us out of our money too. Yes, Landrieu is a far bigger threat than I ever was. And I doubt her brother realizes he’s the mayor of one of the biggest gay cities in the land. For after Katrina, so many fled, and the gays stayed and rebuilt. Funny what God did with that storm, eh?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: