About Me

Name:The New THOMA$ REPORT
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Why Not Newt?

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, February 28, 2008 4:46:27 PM
People (Mostly liberals and Democrats, but also many who pay no attention to politics) think Newt Gingrich is "nobody" any more. That's as liberals and Democrats want it because he was one of the most EFFECTIVE Speakers the House ever had. He AUTHORED the "Contract with America" that caused the Democrats to lose power for a decade. The only reason the Democrats are back in power today is because the Republicans let him down and the Democrats went out of their way to destroy him (BECAUSE he was so effective). He's still out there, working tirelessly for YOU. He should be our next president. I say that because he's SO effective. He's "discredited," you say? In what way? Can you document for me ONE way he has been ACCURATELY discredited? I thought not. Ron Paul is another effective Republican politician I'd vote for. But I don't think I'll have an opportunity in my lifetime. (New't's Contract With America for the 21st Century)


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Race-Based Attendance Policy

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, February 28, 2008 4:33:15 PM
That's what "affirmative action" is. There's no denying it. It is "giving preference" to blacks and Hispanics OVER whites. If saying that makes me a "racist," then so be it. I'd say the same about policies that gave WHITES advantages over blacks, Hispanics, and whatever other groups there are. What they've done is simply "flip-flopped" "race-favoritism" and made it "the law of the land". So they've been ordered by the court to "abandon" race-favoritism" in choosing where to send students in San Juan Capistrano, CA. Big deal. They'll find SOME way to "get around" it. And the rest of the country will continue to use RACE to decide where students are sent, and which ones have preference OVER others. (Pacific Legal Foundation)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bloomberg Bipartisan? Gimme a Break!

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:20:30 PM
"NEW YORK - Mayor Michael Bloomberg has squashed the notion of running for president this year, declaring that he will not seek the White House but might put his support behind another candidate who embraces bipartisan governing. Apparently ending a dance of presidential speculation that began more than two years ago, the 66-year-old billionaire businessman said in an op-ed piece in Thursday's New York Times that he will not launch his own bid but will work to "steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance." Bloomberg is about as bipartisan" as was Saddam Hussein in his country. He's for himself, and the things HE cares about, which is mostly collectivist in nature. He calls himself a Republican, but he has "ruled" in New York as a socialist and a dictator. What he doesn't like, he bans, legal or not. Some people think I call everybody socialist. Actually, I look at what they do, and if it favors individuals, I'll say that. But if it favors collectivism (socialism), I'll say that, too. Bloomberg has hidden behind the "bipartisan" label for way too long. (Yahoo)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative When Conservative Wasn't Cool

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 5:17:02 PM
Truth be known, conservative still isn't cool for a lot of people, notably people who want the government to give them a "free ride" so they won't have to work for a living. But William F. Buckley was the prime mover in the literal creation of conservatism as a respectable philosophy for those who want to do it themselves, without government help, OR interference. His magazine, "The National Review," was for many years, the only journal for conservatives to read. When he started it, there was a certain "dearth" of writers who write from the conservative view because there was no place for their writings. Isn't it amazing how quickly conservative writers and readers responded when his magazine came out? Some people think Rush Limbaugh has "received the torch" passed by him when he died; they may be right, as witness how hated both Buckley and Rush are in certain centers. A good "litmus test" for conservatives is the amount of hatred there is for them in liberal circles. Rush and Bill topped that list. We will miss him. Keep the torch burning, Rush! (Breitbart)

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Reason to Endorse a Socialist

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 4:52:54 PM
Conservative talk show host Bill Cunningham is pissed off at John McCain -- so he's going to support Hillary. Being mad at a Republican for "dissing" you isn't a good reason to support a blatant socialist. Supporting her might even get her elected to the highest office in the land, and what would a conservative do if that happened because he was mad at her opponent? I'm not big on McCain, myself. But there's NO WAY in hell I'd ever vote for that supercilious liberal socialist, Hillary Clinton if the only other choice was a groundhog. If Hillary gets elected president, we're going to move a lot quicker toward socialism than we will under McCain, even though he is more of a socialist than otherwise. It's a "blue day" in this country when the only choices are ALL socialists to one degree or another. (Hot Air)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Won't Like Losing

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 2:47:03 PM
Many of our politicians are "in denial" about whether or not we are "at war" with Islamic terrorism. That Barack Obama recently made a point to say al Qaida was NOT in Iraq before we invaded is not only false, him saying it is shameful. That "Code Pink" would openly advocate the "murder of American troops" is more than shameful. It is CRIMINAL. The fact that whether or not al Qaida was or was not in Iraq before we invaded is irrelevant doesn't seem to dawn on him, and he might become our next president. That scares me. He is of the opinion that George Bush made a big mistake in his handling of terrorism, but an essay written for a blog called "Grizzly Groundswell" brings things into focus. The last few lines are the most telling: "No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers and grandfathers before them. He believed this was still the country our fathers and grandfathers fought so dearly to preserve. It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorrah and the Land of OZ. We DID unite–for a short time–after 911. Our attitude changed when we found out defending our country would require some sacrifices. We are in GREAT danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe it’s okay, even their DUTY, to kill ANYONE who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated about one third–over 300 MILLION Muslims -- are sympathetic to the terrorist cause. Hitler and Tojo COMBINED did not have nearly that many potential recruits." If we lose this war with these sixteenth century warriors, it won't be because they're so good at war. It will be because our top politicians don't want to admit that we ARE at war; a war we MUST win, at all costs, and which we will NOT win if we continue to worry about how "roughly" we treat the Islamic terrorists we capture while they routinely behead people they capture, even those who are not even combatants. Read the article and be ashamed . . .of a large number of people in your country who want us to lose this war. But they, and you, won't like losing. (Grizzly Groundswell)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

While Clinton Slept

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 2:42:59 PM
Former (whew!) President Bill Clinton likes to go around the world CLAIMING he "worked hard" to defeat al Qaida and other Islamic terror organizations, but the truth is uglier. Speaking about a foiled plot to hijack airplanes and fly them into the sea, while flying at least one into the Pentagon, Investor's Business Daily reports, "If the foiled airline bomb plot sounded familiar, it should. In 1995, al-Qaida planned the same thing as the Clinton administration slept. Democrats hope to press the snooze button again in 2008. The 1995 plot was uncovered when Ramzi Yousef, subsequently convicted for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, hastily fled a burning Manila apartment, leaving behind bomb materials and a laptop with disks containing plans for something called Project Bojinka -- the Arabic word for 'loud explosion.' The plot was to blow up 11 American jetliners over the Pacific Ocean, then crash a plane into CIA headquarters -- a mission to be carried out by a Pakistani pilot who had trained at flight schools in North Carolina, Texas and New York. Sound familiar? One would have thought that after al-Qaida had tried to blow up the WTC in 1993 and was discovered to be plotting to blow up airliners and fly them into buildings, the Clinton administration would have connected the dots and taken action. But it didn't." He, and other Democrats like to blame Bush for 9/11 because he was (just recently) in power when it happened. Unfortunately, the "seeds of destruction" were sown long before, while Clinton was getting oral sex in the White House from Monica Lewinski and paying NO attention to business. (Investor's Business Daily)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Border Control Criticized for Defending Themselves

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 2:35:11 PM
They fire tear gas and powerful pepper spray into Mexico to drive off rock-throwing demonstrators IN Mexico. They've been placed close enough to the border now to be "sitting ducks." One woman who lives right on the border screamed, "There are CHILDREN living here!" Like it was our fault. I don't think they should use tear gas and pepper spray. Those are too widespread and punish everyone in sight. I think they should shoot the rioters with "non-lethal missiles." "Soft bullets" that do not kill, but hurt like hell. The rioters are throwing rocks, which can KILL if they hit you right. The Mexican cops sometimes take HOURS to show up and RELUCTANTLY run the thugs off. But sometimes they don't show up at all. These thugs should not be allowed to do that with impunity, but local neighbors shouldn't be forced to suffer because of these criminals. (Sierra Vista Herald)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Libel Terrorism

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, February 24, 2008 4:47:38 PM
Did you know that if you write something for distribution within the United States, but which, through the Internet, sells ONE copy somewhere else in the world, you can become liable for a libel suit in countries where there is no First Amendment? Did you also know that Islamic terrorists are using this to level "libel terrorism" against people who tell the truth about them and it ends up in countries where "truth" is not a sure defense? "American journalists and authors who relentlessly and doggedly pursue the truth about terrorism networks are being met with a barrage of libel lawsuits in kangaroo courts on phony-baloney libel charges in overseas jurisdictions who don’t share our belief in freedom of speech or a free press." And they can use those foreign judgments to come to the United States and attach property and money in the United States belonging to the author while making demands of them. "New York author Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, who has written extensively on terrorist financing, has experienced libel terrorism firsthand. Twenty-three copies of her book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, were sold in England over the internet. Additionally, a chapter of her book was available for viewing on the website of an American television network. On that basis, she was sued for libel in England by a Saudi businessman whom she identified in her book as a terrorist enabler through his financial support of organizations with terrorist ties." The courts recognize this "libel terrorist's" right to bring his English judgment here and demand things of this author but they refuse to allow her to fight it by saying they "have no jurisdiction over this terrorist." to allow her to sue him to throw out his demands. Laws need to be made, not just in New York, but nationally, to protect authors from such harassment. (Human Events)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Veep, I Guess

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:07:31 PM
Hillary was very nice to Obama at the debate recently when she said she was "very honored" to be here with him. But the very next day she castigated him in the worst personal attack she has mounted in this election cycle for a brochure that had been out for days. I guess he told her after the debate that there was no chance of him making her vice-president so she decided to "slap him in the face," figuratively speaking. I've always thought she should be shown that she is not "anointed” to be president. I hope she loses, and loses big. Maybe then she'll realize that she isn't better than the rest of us. She's not "the queen") I hope Obama goes down to defeat, too, because he is even more of a socialist than she is. But I hate the idea of who it must be to defeat him. McCain is as phony a politician as I've seen (outside of Bill Clinton) and while he's not as "dedicated" a socialist as they are, many of his ideas are not only socialist, but totalitarian. The McCain-Feingold Act is one of the worst things he has done as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad I can be considered part of the media, because I'm not going to "shut up" about anybody. If I feel something needs saying, I'll say it, and I don't use "weasel words" such as "prevaricate" or "misspeak" when I spot a lie. I'll call it a lie. And I'm too old for prison. (Just common sense)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

No Conservative, He

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:00:37 PM
John McCain, he of the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold censorship for non-incumbents law (the Incumbent Protection Act), says he is working successfully to "unite" the Republican Party. "Successful" in that he is the only choice left. Unfortunately, there were no good choices, even when the number of candidates threatened to overflow the meeting places without a single spectator present. He will probably get the GOP nomination, and he might even win the general election (I hope so, not because I like him, but because a Democrat would not be in the White House, however socialist he may be). If we can elect enough Republicans to Congress, maybe we can stymie most of his more outlandish measures and slow the march toward socialism we will get, whichever side is in power). It's a good thing voting doesn't require two hands, because most of those who will vote for him, (myself included) will be using one of their hands to hold their noses closed because this candidate list, on both sides, stinks. (Republican Leadership Committee)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Biggest Oil Profiteer is Government

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Saturday, February 23, 2008 9:24:33 PM
"New York's senior senator (Chucky Schumer -D) recently opined that the 'fact that Big Oil is pulling in record-breaking profits while most Americans are breaking the bank to fill up their gas tanks is both despicable and mind-boggling.' " Schumer, along with colleague and presidential wannabe Hillary Clinton and others, is calling for a return of the tax on "windfall profits." But they both ignore the fact that, according to a new report from the Tax Foundation, the biggest profiteers from oil aren't the companies that produce it and deliver it to our gas tanks, but the federal and state governments that tax it". But will seeing information like this cause Chucky to change his tune? Don't hold your breath. Democrats are well known for not letting facts get in the way of a "cause." A quick look at the chart accompanying this article will show you that the government routinely makes more money than the oil industry, whatever the profits. In 1995, for instance, the oil industry earned about $10 billion dollars in profit. In the same year, they were taxed to the tune of almost SIXTY billion! Yes, last year they ALMOST made as much as the government made on their profits (way back in 1977, or close to $43 billion dollars. Meanwhile, they were taxed to the tune of nearly SIXTY billion dollars! Yes, the oil industry IS making more money (gross) these days (because the prices, that are not controlled by "big oil" are going up), but as usual, the GOVERNMENT is making a lot more than the oil companies. So what else is new? (Investor's Business Daily)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Permits: The Power to Say "No"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Saturday, February 23, 2008 4:46:42 PM
If you have the power to say yes, you also have the power to say no. In New York City, a blogger who used to enjoy the protection of the liberal Newsday newspaper while he criticized the New York Police Dept. quit that job in 2005, and the police, who get to issue all press passes, no matter what you're writing about, refused to renew the pass and wouldn't give him a copy of their "rules" under which such passes were issued. This sounds a lot like retaliation for his criticism of the police department over the years. They want to put him out of business. And without a press pass (which they control), he can't do his job, which it is obvious the cops want, and, since they get to issue press passes, they have the power to make that happen. (The New York Sun)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Silencing Your Opponents

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Saturday, February 23, 2008 1:42:37 PM
Politicians will do anything, use any "law" they can find to silence their opposition. As proof, witness the use in Okalahoma, of a murky law "requiring" petitioners to be Oklahoma residents when circulating a petition to try and put one in prison for ten years for helping to circulate a petition to stop these politicians from spending tax money like "drunken sailors." "National term limits leader and initiative rights advocate Paul Jacob and two others were indicted in Oklahoma October 2, 2007, on felony charges of violating the state’s statute requiring petition circulators to be residents of Oklahoma. 'This indictment is not about the law, but about politics -- ugly, anti-democratic politics,' said Paul Jacob, president of the pro-initiative group Citizens in Charge and a senior fellow at the Sam Adams Alliance, a grassroots political organization. 'Their prosecution is a 100-percent politically-motivated attempt to threaten and intimidate me, and any other citizen wishing to petition their government.' "One day, they'll make it a felony to blog about politics or ethics, then I'll be "in the soup" because I won't shut up. Period (Free Paul Jacob).
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain's "Tryst?"

Posted by The New THOMA$ REPORT on Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:09:24 PM
That's what he was having with a female lobbyist during his last campaign, according to unnamed, anonymous "sources" who didn't have the guts to come forward with their names, yet the New York Times didn't care. They ran with it, even though they had nothing in the way of proof that there was ever such an affair. McCain says it's bulls--t. Their "unnamed anonymous sources" might have been Hillary Clinton's campaign workers, for all we know, and for all NYT knows. But of course, since McCain seems to be the Republican candidate for president, they decided to unload on him now, true or not. What amazes me about McCain is his insistence on calling people like those at NYT who ran this story his "friends." That story wasn't run by "his friends." Now, I'm not "big" on McCain, either. But since he's all we seem to have this time to run against Hillary and Obama's socialist machine, I'll probably have to vote for him to keep Hillary and Obama out of the White House. Hillary because they still seem to think she is "anointed" to be president, and Obama because he's even more of a socialist liberal than she is. (New York Times)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »