Rep. Ma'r'xine Waters (Maoist - CA, Truthteller)

"Let me let you in on a secret.  I am the senior-most person serving on the Financial Services Committee.  Barney Frank is about to retire and guess who's shaking in their boots?  The too-big-to-fail banks and financial institutions and all of Wall Street, because Maxine Waters is going to be the next chair of the Financial Services Committee!"

And that's not a threat...That's a promise!

As if the entities she's railing against aren't huge supporters of the Democrat Party.  A peek at their donor lists, as well as Obama's cabinet and underlings, tells a story Marxie doesn't want told...But I digress.

It's pretty bad when "Barney Frank" is portrayed as somewhat moderate...This woman is nuts, but I take her at her word(s):

"If [banks] don't come up with loan modifications and keep people in their homes that they've worked so hard for, we're going to tax them out of business." - Marxie (2011)

"Guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal will be about socializing...uh, um...Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies." - Marxie (2008)

She meant what she said in 2008.  She meant what she said in 2011.  And, she means what she says in 2012.

It's bad enough to envision Nancy Pelosi as Speaker again, but Marxie in such a high leadership role might be even worse...Another reason the whole flock of mother-flockers-with-(D)-behind-their-name need to be voted out in November; not just the President.

Barack Obama (Economist-in-Chief)

"When Congress refuses to act, Joe and I are going to act...In the months to come, wherever we have an opportunity, we're going to take steps on our own to keep this economy moving."

Lets get a few things straight:

1.  The Republican House has sent many budgets and job plans to the Senate...The Democrat Senate refuses to do likewise, or to come up with compromises on the House ideas.  Which allows Obama to play the "Congress refuses to act" card.

2.  Obama is right, the economy is moving.  Which direction is the problem...Team Obama touts improvement, but real economists (Left and Right) know this improvement is slight at best, and slight-of-hand at worst.

What we need to remember is 'movement' goes both ways...We can move up, down or sideways.

Unfortunately, under Obama's leadership we've seen more down and sideways than up...Part of the reason is due to Obama's anti-business ideas, which crush jobs.  This is why Obama is the Isaac Newton of American Economic Theory - minus the genius part.

Newton's Third Law of Motion:  "To every action there is always an opposed and equal reaction."

In other words, a lot of what Obama proposes leads to an equally opposite reaction of what he claims:  He kills jobs, not creates or saves them.

My question is, does he do it on purpose (evil genius), or is he just incompetent?  Either way the reality is he's dangerous to the economy...Another term might make him lethal.

State Sen. Pat Jones (D - Utah)

“If you think it’s inconvenient for parents to be warned about the dangers of tanning, how inconvenient is it to take your children to chemotherapy treatments?”

- Commenting on a proposed state law banning minors from going to a tanning salon without parental permission.

Truthfully, I have no problem with passing laws against minors doing stupid shit. They're generally morons, and more parental supervision and authority would be a good thing in our country.

That said, I'm betting Sen. Pat has no problem with minors going to doctors to have their children disected in-utero, ripped from the belly and tossed in the trash...I'm not an anti-abortion absolutist, I'm just saying.

Minors tanning without mommy and daddy = Bad. Minors having abortions without mommy and daddy = Good...Such is the illogical insanity of Liberal morality.

Jeffrey Kerr (PETA Attorney)

"Today’s decision does not change the fact that the orcas who once lived naturally wild and free, are today kept as slaves by SeaWorld...PETA will regroup and determine how to continue to work for the legal protection they deserve."

- Statement after a federal judge dismissed a PETA lawsuit against Sea World 'enslaving whales'.

The judge put it best:  "As ‘slavery’ and ‘involuntary servitude’ are uniquely human activities, as those terms have been historically and contemporaneously applied, there is simply no basis to construe the Thirteenth Amendment as applying to non-humans." - District Judge Jeffrey Miller

Non-humans don't get human rights.  Duh!

And if it weren't for zoo's like Sea World, many of the world's great sea creatures would be gone, because bringing these animals close to human contact has made them worth preserving.  In other words, Sea World, and other zoo's of the world, have done much more good for animals than the clowns at PETA have...A reality environmentalists are completely unable (unwilling) to acknowledge.

 

Jani Kozlowski (North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services)

"With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that's the dairy...It sounds like the lunch itself would've met all the standards."

Q:  Pero, how is that a Liberal Quote?
A:  It isn't...Yet it is.

It isn't a Liberal Quote, but it is in response to one of the most ridiculous acts of Liberal jackassery I've heard in a long time:  A preschool teacher took a kid's sack lunch away from her and had her eat the school cafeteria lunch instead...The sack lunch had a turkey sandwich on whole wheat bread, with apple juice, a piece of fruit and a bag of chips.  The school lunch for the day included milk and vegetables (meeting two requirements), which the girl didn't eat, and chicken nuggets (meeting another requirement), which she did eat.

In other words, the teacher replaced a very reasonably nutritious sack lunch the girl would eat for a stack of deep-fried pressed beaks and claws (or whatever is in those nuggets)...Sounds about right in the lunatic-fringe world we live in.

So, back to the top.  Why is Jani's statement a Liberal Quote?  On its face it doesn't look like one.

It is a Liberal Quote, because she didn't come out and say the school taking any kid's homemade sack lunch is ridiculous.  Instead she said the sack lunch "met all the standards"...What if it hadn't "met all the standards"?  Would it be acceptable then?  Her tone and words seem to say it would be acceptable to take away a lunch she doesn't feel is up "the standards".

You know, a lunch at the standards of chicken nuggets!

Oh, and the child's mother received a bill from the school for providing her daughter with lunch for the day.

Barack Obama (Campaigner-in-Chief)

"Today, we're announcing the 2012 launch of 'African Americans for Obama'...Visit africanamericans.barackobama.com."

Any chance Romney/Santorum/Gingrich (or whoever runs for the Republicans) "announces the 2012 launch of" 'Caucasian Americans for ____________'?  I'm thinking it's not likely.  Because only Democrats can get away with being outwardly racist SOB's.

That said, Obama better pray he gets the same black turnout as he did in 2008, or he's going to fighting a much more difficult battle.

http://www.facebook.com/madonna.and.not.war (Anti-War Group, Sort Of)

"Bibi don't start a war with Iran until after Madonna's show on May 29."

- Israeli Facebookers begging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to disturb their concert plans by trying to stop the Iranians from getting an atom-bomb.

I've heard of pro-war hawks and anti-war doves, but I don't know what to call these maggots.  Maybe they're a new breed:  'pro-entertainment dove-hawks'.

'Forget the 'existential threat' thing, but don't really forget it.  Just put it off a few months'...Bwahahaha!

Funniest of all is these clowns desperate desire to see a way past her prime, Betty White, err, Madonna concert.

Only in Israel.

Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate)

"I realize there are some wealthy individuals (in Congress) - I’m not one of them."

She's not "one of them"?  She's not "wealthy"?

Let's take a look at that claim:  Warren lives in a $5,000,000 house, and has an investment portfolio of $8,000,000.  If she's elected to the Senate she'll rank among the 'Top 25 wealthiest members of Congress.'

What the hell is "wealthy" in the mind of this jackal?  The answer isn't as simple as dollars and cents (or sense) to these Liberal scumbags because they look at themselves as deserving elites, which exempts them from normal standards...They are 'smarter', more 'caring' and 'compassionate' than Average Joes so they deserve their millions, but they are not "wealthy."

Average Joes, however, aren't as 'smart' or 'caring' and 'compassionate' as they are, and really don't deserve their tens-of-thousands...In fact, they are nothing but useful idiots in the grand schemes of the do-gooder, Liberal elites.  So if they earn anything over the level of subsistence established by the Elizabeth Warren-types they are expected to give it back to the Elizabeth Warren-types because the elites can spend it much more wisely than the Average Joes.

Sound condescending?  It is!  It is the essence of Liberalism, which is Paternalism:  "Paternalism is the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and defended or motivated by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm." - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy