The blogs and the (most left-of-center) pundits are having such a field day with Carl Paladino’s recent comments on gays that they’re missing the real story.  Like their fascination with the escapades of Meg Whitman’s housekeeper, statements Christine O’Donnell made in the 1990s and the latest rantings of lunatic preachers with miniscule congregations in Florida and Kansas, they’ll do anything to smear the non-left, anything to detract attention from the real issues moving voters this fall.

The Republican nominee for Governor of New York State has most recently criticized his Democratic rival

. . . . for having taken his young daughters to a gay pride parade, saying that such events were inappropriate for children.

“Is that normal? Would you do it? Would you take your children to a gay pride parade?” Mr. Paladino asked the host Matt Lauer on the “Today” show, speaking of Mr. Cuomo.

“I don’t think it’s proper for them to go there and watch a couple of grown men grind against each other. I don’t think that’s proper. I think it’s disgusting.”

Now, I’ll grant that there is some, shall we say, inappropriate activity at some gay pride parades, things that are better left behind closed doors.  And it’s pretty clear that Paladino was calling the public “grinding” disgusting.  That said, he was trying to making a campaign issue of his opponent’s attendance a gay pride pride!?!?!  C’mon, I mean, doesn’t the Empire State have some pretty pressing fiscal issues that the next Governor will need to confront?

Not just that, a man who is in hot water for farming out a speech addressing gay issues to “an ardent opponent of gay rights” should probably leave well enough alone and refrain from talking about gay pride parades.  Should Paladino refrain from talking about gay issues, he’d be following the lead of most Republicans this cycle, indeed, the lead of most Republicans in cycles where the GOP emerges victorious.

(more…)

Glenn alerts us to another controversial casting call:

When President Obama sits down for his MTV town hall this Thursday, the audience of young people who will ask him questions will have been gathered by a casting call.

According to the casting call for the event from talent agency Backstage.com, first reported by National Review Online, the company requests applications for the event, asking what issues the person is “passionate about,” requiring a “short description of your political views,” and also asks for a recent photo.

This leads Charlie Foxtrot to quip, “Any casting call application that requires you to state a “description of your political views” probably equates to what we in the military call “self-initiated elimination” for those conservatives who want to get into the Hollywood scene…”

It began when the liberal editors of the San Francisco Chronicle refused to make an endorsement in the U.S. Senate race, citing the failure of 3-term incumbent Barbara Boxer

. . . to distinguish herself during her 18 years in office. There is no reason to believe that another six-year term would bring anything but more of the same uninspired representation. . . .

Boxer, first elected in 1992, would not rate on anyone’s list of most influential senators. Her most famous moments on Capitol Hill have not been ones of legislative accomplishment, but of delivering partisan shots. Although she is chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, it is telling that leadership on the most pressing issue before it – climate change – was shifted to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., because the bill had become so polarized under her wing.

For some Californians, Boxer’s reliably liberal voting record may be reason enough to give her another six years in office. But we believe Californians deserve more than a usually correct vote on issues they care about. They deserve a senator who is accessible, effective and willing and able to reach across party lines to achieve progress on the great issues of our times. Boxer falls short on those counts.

The editors of the more centrist LA Daily News reached the same conclusion:

Barbara Boxer, a longtime pol who, in her almost 28 years in the Senate and Congress, has yet to distinguish herself or the state she represents. . . .  While Boxer is little more than a political follower in Washington, [her opponent Carly] Fiorina is a leader of the charismatic sort found in many of the country’s greatest statesmen and women.

As have the editors of the Bakersfield Californian: (more…)

While HRC President Joe Solmonese sits comfortably ensconced in his fancy office in downtown D.C., jetting off occasionally to hobnob with Democratic donors across the country, some gay activists, organized by GetEqual are reminding president of the promises he made on the campaign trail:

A group of LGBT equality activists working to end “don’t ask, don’t tell” launched an elaborate protest early Monday evening as President Barack Obama attended a private Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fund-raiser in Miami at the home of NBA star Alonzo Mourning.

There’s lots more on Pam Spaulding’s page, including numerous links to GetEqual’s Twitter (& Facebook) feed, among them this clever quip, “President Obama got our message loud and clear. He waved as he was passing by — but we need more than a wave!” It seems Joe’ll settle for air kisses — and a few visits to the White House.

Pam’s co-blogger Keori reminds us . . .

. . . discharges continue, as two of our own are experiencing. DNC Vice Chair Ray Buckley flipped off GetEqual’s message of concern this week. Once again, President Obama is hobnobbing with basketball stars rather than live up to his promises to LGB troops. Tonight, he’s getting an earful.

It does seem the activists and leftie bloggers are doing all heavy lifting that Gay, Inc. won’t do.

NB:  Tweaked the post when Pam reminded me that one of her co-bloggers had written the post.

Well, Sharron Angle might not need a rainstorm in Las Vegas to carry the day.  Seems Republicans across the country are fired up and rarin’ to vote:

Fifty-six percent of likely voters said they would back an unnamed Republican candidate for Congress in a test of a low-turnout scenario for the crucial midterm elections. Thirty-nine percent in that same model said they would back a Democratic candidate, an increase by one percent over last week.

In [the] high-turnout model, Republicans maintain a 53-41 percent advantage among likely voters. That also represented a one percent tick upward in support for Democrats.

The poll suggests that the GOP hasn’t lost any steam in its bid to pick up 39-plus seats they need in the House to reclaim the majority.

Rasmussen, you think?  Nope, it’s Gallup, you know that gold standard in polling.  Writing about the poll, Frank Newport notes, “Republicans maintain a substantial advantage over Democrats among likely voters in Gallup’s generic ballot for Congress — in both lower- and higher-turnout scenarios — fueled in part by the GOP’s strong showing among independents.”

Even among registered voters, including those not likely to vote, Republicans maintain a 10-point edge, an edge which exceeds 20 points among both low- and high-turnout scenarios.

Yes…. THAT Adam Baldwin, folks!

Tonight’s special guest for the first segment is TV/film actor and conservative author Adam Baldwin. Most of you know Adam for his work on NBC’s spy/comedy show “Chuck”. He’s had a successful Hollywood career for over 30 years including the role of “Animal Mother” in Stanley Kubrick’s Vietnam War classic “Full Metal Jacket.” I first remember Adam when I was a kid and I saw the movie “My Bodyguard”. A classic!

Our second half-hour features fellow North Carolinian blogger Lorie Byrd. She was one of the original center-right bloggers back in the day.  Lorie was featured on PoliPundit, started Wizbang, and writes at her own blog Byrd Droppings. We’ll talk about the state of play in the crucial NC Congressional races.
 

RELATED LINKS FROM TONIGHT’S SHOW

Adam Baldwin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Baldwin
Adam Baldwin on Twitter:  www.twitter.com/adamsbaldwin

Lorie Byrd on Twitter: www.twitter.com/loriebyrd
Renee Ellmers for Congress: www.ReneeforCongress.com

Election Projection (The Blogging Caesar): http://electionprojection.com/index.php

WSJ: Congressional Staffers Gain from Insider Trading

FOX News: Military/Overseas Americans May Be Disenfranchised on Election Day

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Ilario Pantano is a combat veteran of two wars, a small business owner, an author and a constitional conservative. He is running for Congress to retire an entrenched politician who votes with Nancy Pelosi over 90% of the time in a district that has not elected a Republican since the 1800s. This race was recently upgraded from “Safely Democrat” to “Toss Up” because polls show that Ilario can win, and momentum is building on his side.

Pantano has another distinction in this race.  He was viciously attacked by the anti-war, anti-American Left as the result of his service to our nation in Iraq.

Ilario Pantano is a respected combat veteran, and bestselling author who has worked in both global markets and small business. The “born again Southerner” is a 38 year-old conservative committed to promoting job creation and revitalizing the economy, protecting the homeland and preserving our conservative values.

On his way to a meeting in Manhattan, he witnessed the Twin Towers burning in the attacks of September 11, 2001.   Friends and colleagues were killed in the attacks.

Pantano rushed to a recruiter’s office and began the lengthy process of returning to service in the Marines, this time as an officer.  

Pantano graduated Marine officer training in the top 2 percentile and was selected by his peers to lead their Infantry Officer Class. Upon graduation, 2^nd Lt Pantano and his family were assigned to Camp Lejeune North Carolina, where he took command of an Infantry Platoon with the 2^nd Battalion of the 2^nd Marine Regiment, the WARLORDS.  The WARLORDS deployed to the “Triangle of Death” Region in Iraq where they conducted combat operations in Latafiyah, Yusufiyah and Falluja.

After months of insurgent violence triggered by the infamous ambush and grisly hanging of Americans in Fallujah (2004), Pantano was investigated for actions in killing two terrorists after a disgruntled Marine that Pantano had publicly demoted filed a complaint. The case took on national attention. Media outlets from dozens of national networks and newspapers overflowed the courtroom.  After a lengthy and very public hearing of the facts, Pantano was cleared of all charges and given a new command, but death threats from jihadists and fear for his family ultimately led Pantano to resign his commission. 

Pantano was the subject of faux outrage from the MoveOn.org wing of the Democrat Party (the only wing at this point).  He was falsely accused of murder and the anti-war loons went all Jack Murtha on him.  LINK: http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=760785&page=1

Now, it is true that Pantano doesn’t think “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” should be repealed at this time.  Having never served in the military, I have to completely respect his perspective.  However, I also believe that someone like Pantano (a Gen-X’er who grew up under Reagan and responded to his nation’s call after 9/11/01) will have a completely different perspective on gay issues than many who currently sit in Congress (GOP & Dem alike).  What is that perspective?  An open mind. 

Pantano is a true American hero.  He’s a hard-working, hard-charging candidate and I believe he will be the new Congressman from NC-07.  If Pantano wins this seat, Nancy Pelosi has a very hard path to retaining her Speaker’s gavel. Please join me in supporting the candidacy of Ilario Pantano.  DONATE NOW!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Wondering whether “the Internet has become our means of tapping into our inner sociopath“, Diane Dimond wonders whether “we are quickly becoming a people who have forgotten how to empathize with others.”  And so she gets at the larger social issue behind what she calls, “cyber-bulling” and the recent rash of suicides of sensitive young people, most of them gay:

Five young people have committed suicide in the last few weeks after constant cyber-bulling made them feel life wasn’t worth living. Each of them was trying to sort out sexual feelings and did not yet have the adult ability to shrug off the ugly Internet attacks.

Maybe we do need new laws — or at least to adapt old ones to new technology.

Our laws and legal system must catch up to our technological ability to harass, defame and torture others through our computers. I propose prosecutors pursue the maximum penalty in the Rutgers suicide case (where two young people stand charged) as a signal to other hate-filled people that their behavior is just not acceptable. If we can teach people the proper etiquette for a bowling alley, we can certainly try for the same on the Internet, right?

Sounds like a step in the right direction.

Read the whole thing.  And I mean that, read the whole thing.

If it rains in Las Vegas on election day, Sharron Angle will win the U.S. Senate seat from the Silver State by a comfortable margin.

Seems everyone is trying to speculate how big the Republican wave will be this fall. While no one really knows who’s going to vote, one thing we do know is that the Republicans are far more enthusiastic about voting than are Democrats.  In Nevada, Angle’s supporters would go through hell and high water to vote for their gal.  Most of Reid’s supporters are only voting for the four-term Democrat because he’s been portrayed her as a bat out of hell.  Or a witch.  Or something really, really, really bad.  But, they’re not really dead set on voting.

CBS News, whose polls tends to skew left, rates GOP enthusiasm level about 20 points above that of the Democrats (just about where most polls put it):

Sixty percent of Republicans said they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting this year, while only 40 percent of Democrats said the same. Last month, 47 Democrats and 58 percent of Republicans said they were more excited than usual to vote.

And Stacy McCain reminds us that some seats not even on the prognosticators’ radar may be more competitive than their partisan breakdown might suggest:

Progressive pollster Nate Silver notes that an “uprecendented number” of House seats (87 in all) are now rated as competitive by the Cook Political Report — and AZ-7 isn’t even on Charlie Cook’s radar! So if a poll shows a “safe” Democrat in serious trouble against an underfunded challenger the “experts” haven’t even noticed, what percentage of those “competitive” Democratic seats will go Republican?

How many more allegedly “safe” Democrats are actually in danger?

So, with Republicans fired up and rarin’ to vote, a district that Obama by a comfortable margin could tip Republican come Election Day 2010.  And if it rains in Democratic jurisdictions like Las Vegas, well, the Republicans will make their way to the polling places while Democrats will ask, “Why bother?”

* (more…)

Well, let’s look at the bright side, at least the GOP nominee for Governor of the Empire State thought better of calling gays dysfunctional:

Katzblog tweets that this line was in the prepared text, although Epstein tweets it was left out when he spoke: “There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual. that is not how G-d created us.”

Guess he thought it remind his audience of his campaign.  According to the New York Post, “When Paladino saw those lines, he disagreed with them and left them out of the speech, [Paladino campaign manager Michael] Caputo said.”

Apparently, some errant staffer wrote them.  What kind of candidate in New York State brings on a staffer who would write such a thing?   Certainly, not someone familiar with winning elections?  There were some other loopy lines that the candidate did deliver.

In various “red” states, most (but alas not all) Republican candidates are pretty much ignoring gay issues (save to say they support traditional marriage), so what purpose does it serve for a candidate in a “blue” state to talk about it on the campaign trail?  Well, it does antagonize those fiscally conservative voters in the suburbs who, last fall, voted Republican in local elections.

As the rest of the nation trends Republican, looks like Carl Paladino is doing everything in his power to create a bright spot for the president’s party.

UPDATE:  Palladino tries to explain himself.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  rusty reports that it wasn’t a staffer who wrote the remarks:

Rabbi Levin has admitted to creating Crazy Carl’s speech.
The remarks read in Borough Park by Paladino, who often speaks without prepared text, were written by Rabbi Yehuda Levin, an ardent opponent of gay rights and abortion and occasional New York political candidate, Rabbi Levin told The Jewish Week.

UP-UPDATE: Ace thinks the above exonerates Palladino:

So, does this explanation get Paladino off the hook? Answer: Yes. I don’t get this whole business of delegating campaign communications to outside parties he hopes to court — and I hope he abandons this bizarre experiment with outsourcing forthwith — but assuming he’s telling the truth, and it does appear confirmed he is, then he had nothing to do with this statement, except hold a piece of paper containing it in his hand.

Writing about Sean Bielat, the man set to replace one of the most arrogant members of Congress, James Taranto contrasts him with that unhappy incumbent:

Mr. Bielat’s varied résumé is quite a contrast with that of Mr. Frank, who is twice the challenger’s age yet has spent more than half his adult life in Congress. “Of his 45 years of work experience, 44 have been either in political office or working for somebody in political office,” Mr. Bielat says of the incumbent. “The other one was teaching at the Harvard Kennedy School.” (No, Mr. Bielat did not have the congressman as a professor.)

Mr. Frank has been in Congress since before his opponent could read.

Read the whole thing and when you’re done, make sure to support Bielat’s campaign.

Hopeandchange, folks…. Hopeandchange.

This is the whole that Obama Democrats’ One Trillion Stimulus has dug for our nation and our future generations. Not even a short-term gain for the pain. Just pain all around. Pathetic.

How’s is this NOT a Depression, again? Remind me, please.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Why am I posting this?  Well, for no other reason the sheer delight of knowing that Gay Leftist heads will be exploding all over the place this morning.  Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha.

“I WROTE a new speech for the gays and I don’t have it memorized yet!” said Ann Coulter, as she ducked into a hallway in the Union Square apartment of the venture capitalist Peter Thiel on a recent Saturday night, flicking a half-empty packet of Habitrol gum between her fingers. She was there to speak at Homocon 2010, a party for the one-year anniversary of GOProud, the Washington-based advocacy group for gay conservatives.

For a right-wing, evangelical Christian who has made fun of homosexuals and opposes same-sex marriage, Ms. Coulter seemed awfully … game. Wearing a black lace-up cocktail dress and high black heels, she posed for a photograph with the founder of Boy Butter, a maker of sex lubricants. She joked about her fellow conservatives. “Yes, that was Elton John at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding, not Velma from ‘Scooby-Doo,’ ” she said, as listeners chuckled. She warmly greeted a pornographic film director, and admired the “freedom is fabulous” T-shirt worn by one volunteer. “Can you be gay and conservative?” she shouted at the mostly male crowd, many of whose shirt collars were soaked with sweat after the air-conditioning had faltered. “You have to be!” Conservatives, she surmised, are tough on the war against Islamic terrorists. “And you know what the Muslims do to gays,” she said, flashing a knowing look.

Ah, but for the rest…. you will have READ THE WHOLE THING.

By the way, the founder of Boy Butter must have slipped my attention at the Homocon event.  LOL.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Good Sunday morning. Nothing like waking up with The President. Reagan, that is.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Now, that the media have spent the past several weeks dredging through the 1990s videos of a Republican Senate candidate, guess it’s fair game to start pulling out 1990s videos of Democratic gubernatorial candidates, particularly when said candidate had been a public figure (as of the time of the tape in question) for a quarter-century.

With the federal government taking over our health care system, with state governments helping them manage it, it’s just a slight bit more important what Jerry Brown said about mammograms in 1995 than what Christine O’Donnell said in the same decade about her high school dabbling in witchcraft.  Yet, something tells me this won’t generate the same about of headlines.

Acknowledging that the former governor “is correct, there are questions regarding the effectiveness of mammograms because they generate false positives“, Yid with Lid reminds us of something more important:  while mammograms may indeed be “more costly than they seem. But then again that is the problem with government health care, they look at the cost of keeping someone alive, the rest of us look as a life as something so precious it is priceless.”

In the video former Republican Delaware Governor Pete du Pont faulted his one-time colleague from the (once-)Golden state, “But you ought to have the option — if you think they’re going to help you, if you think they’re going to help you, you ought to have the option of having one.”

But, this Democrat just doesn’t think women should have that choice. Guess some choices just don’t matter to the gals at NOW.

Gotta love the response from the Brown campaign, pokesman Sterling Clifford said, “Jerry Brown opposes cancer in all cases.” Politico’s Ben Smith files that one under the Department of Courageous Stands.

Wonder what Gloria Allred has to say about this.

UPDATE:  Watching the clip, Moe Lane quips, “Moonbeam Brown’s Been Weird For Years Edition.”  Is this the guy to tackle California’s fiscal mess?

Aaron Sorkin has earned his reputation as one of the best writers in Hollywood.  He’ll probably take him his first Oscar for the Social Network.  This is one movie that lives up to its hype.  Whether it will stand the test of time is yet to be seen, but it does get you talking.  And thinking.

And the script is amazing, incredibly fast-paced, making the famed Warner Brothers dialogue of the 1930s seem slow by comparison.  When finally the movie does slow down, the scene is accompanied by Edvard Grieg’s Hall of the Mountain King, a movement which starts slow and builds to a frenzy.  Interesting, fascinating, choice.  Brilliant.

The movie to borrow (and likely paraphrase) an expression from its first scene was like riding a stairmaster, showing how a socially inept college computer geek created perhaps the most popular social networking venue in world history.  Told through two separate depositions in court proceedings against this geek, it leaves you wondering whether he deliberately cut his best friend out of the company they founded together in their college dorm room or whether he let himself be manipulated by lawyers, venture capitalists and a more socially savvy web “entrepreneur.”

It’s not so much a great story as it is a character study.  And like an entirely different such study (but in some ways quite similar), Citizen Kane, it brilliantly utilizes the medium of film.  Great movies, I’ve often learned, don’t have to tell great stories.  They merely have to engage you as they paint the portrait of an individual.  And this does so brilliantly.  Whether it honestly tells the story of the founder of Facebook I don’t know, but it’s amazing to see how quickly this phenomenon has grown.

Seven year ago, it was nothing.  Today, it has over 500,000,000 members.  Neither of the organization’s founders have yet celebrated their 30th birthday. (more…)

“In all seriousness,” Ed Morrissey asks

. . . what does it take for a Democrat to lose an endorsement from the National Organization of Women?  Choosing Larry Flynt as a campaign manager?  Would that at least have them hold off for at least a couple of days in order to make the endorsement not seem as blatantly partisan and mindless as their endorsement of Jerry Brown just hours after discovering that his campaign strategized over painting opponent Meg Whitman as a “whore”?

. . . .

Whitman showed that women can succeed at the highest levels of the private sector with her incredible leadership at eBay, and that women can turn that success into political force.  That flies in the face of their need to hype victimization over self-determination, and demand the expansion of government interventions to dictate outcomes rather than create an equitable environment in which all can compete equally and win or lose based on their talent, drive, and fortunes.

Read the whole thing.  Hugh notes the media double standard:

Imagine if a GOP candidate for governor or senator in any high profile race in the land was heard on tape either uttering the word “whore” about his Democratic woman opponent or not reacting to his aide using the term in regard to that opponent –what would the reaction of the MSM be to the story?

From his Rolling Stone interview:

.. I came in and had to prevent a Great Depression, restore the financial system so that it functions, and manage two wars. In the midst of all that, I ended one of those wars, at least in terms of combat operations. We passed historic healthcare legislation, historic financial regulatory reform and a huge number of legislative victories that people don’t even notice. We wrestled away billions of dollars of profit that were going to the banks and middlemen through the student-loan program, and now we have tens of billions of dollars that are going directly to students to help them pay for college. We expanded national service more than we ever have before …

We end a war against an enemy of our nation, yet score a “victory” in the halls of Congress.

To be sure, Republicans would also hail passage of legislation they like as a victory, but they (and many Democrats for that matter) would call a successful military operation a victory as well.

(Link above via Instapundit.)

Those who follow politics all hear the stories about a campaign’s internal polls, reputedly far more accurate that those the various (and sundry) polling agencies release to the media.  Sometimes, they take on the status of legend as those supposedly showing softness among Obama voters in 2008, with many likely to switch to McCain in the privacy of the voting booth.

And sometimes we wonder if they even exist, that they are really just a talking point for the campaigns to hint at a different sort of electorate that we hear about on the news, read about in the papers or on the blogs.  Some of us with contacts on campaigns try to wheedle that information out, but those polls are guarded as holy secrets, to be shared only among the most devoted followers.

All that said, from time to time, you did get an idea what some of these polls are saying.  If a party’s Senatorial campaign committee suddenly pumps a few million dollars into a state which normally supports its candidates, you can bet their internals show their candidate losing support.  And if another such committee pumps money into a state that’s not normally friendly territory to its candidates, you can bet its nominee is picking up steam.

If a Democratic candidate sounds plaintive while the media bend over backwards to smear his Republican rival, you can bet his internals don’t look good.  And if another Democrat darkly attempts to divert attention to social issues, you know his economic message is not winning over voters.

This suggests internal polling shows tight Senate races in Connecticut and California and Republican-leaning electorates in Nevada and Colorado.

You can help make the California race a little more amenable to a real reformer by backing her campaign.

7.6 Million jobs are not here.  Where are they?  Ask President Obama.

Total employment in the United States economy now stands at 130.2 million. This is 7.6 million jobs short of where the President promised the economy would be by December 2010 if Congress adopted his economic policies. 9.6% unemployment. A 7.6 million jobs gap. Unemployment is actually higher now than when the recession ended in June. If this is not the definition of failure, then what is?

Ask Conn Carroll (no relation) from the Heritage Foundation asks, “when will Obama Administration admit that their economic policies have been a complete failure?”

Remember, the $816 BILLION stimulus was supposed to keep unemployment at 8.5%.  No higher.  They promised.  They said if Congress DIDN’T pass the Stimulus, things would get much worse.  They were both right and wrong.  Congress passed the Stimulus and now things have gotten much worse.  Quite the pickle for “the most brilliant” President evah, wouldn’t you say?

By contrast, when the 1980s recession ended in December 1982, unemployment stood at 10.8%. Fifteen months into President Ronald Reagan’s economic recovery, and unemployment had already fallen three full points to 7.8%. Why was the Reagan recovery such a success? And why is the Obama recovery such a failure? Well, for starters, President Reagan did not saddle our children with a brand new $1 trillion entitlement. But more urgently, President Reagan also did not threaten the U.S. economy with the largest tax hike in American history.

There still is time for Congress to act to prevent the Obama tax hikes. Tax hikes that include higher rates on individual income, capital gains and dividends. No Americans will escape the damage from the Obama tax hikes including: 1) Destroying an average of 693,000 jobs every year through 2020; 2) Draining $726 billion from disposable income, $38 billion from personal savings and $33 billion from business investments; 3) costing the average non-farm small-business owner $3,500 more in taxes, and much, much more.

This seems a good time to re-pimp the upcoming movie “I Want Your Money” which opens on October 15.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)