politicalpartypoop.com

I found this on Moonbattery I wonder just how many American taxpayers would tolerate the government stealing their money to pay college tuition for illegal criminal immigrants.
This shit is just getting out of hand and must be stopped.

*****

Colorado now sensibly prohibits state colleges from providing in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. After all, the illegals don’t even belong in the country, much less the state, so why should Colorado have to finance their higher education?

But in a country as choked with moonbattery as our own, illegals can always find a free ride somewhere. Across the state line, New Mexico has barred itself from denying education benefits based on whether you are in the country legally. Consequently, illegal aliens are coming down from Colorado to climb aboard the gravy train. With in-state tuition and scholarships, they don’t have to pay a penny.

Some illegals are aware of this opportunity because Poudre High School counselor Isabel Thacker in Colorado has been encouraging them to exploit it.

So if you want to go to college in New Mexico on someone else’s dime, first immigrate to Mexico. Then sneak back into the country illegally. The taxpayers will pave your way with gold.

Found this on the blog Ace of Spades, more congressional taxpayer ripoff bullshit and these people don’t give a shit that you folks know what’s going on, amazing!  

*** 

His arrogance is astouding. Not only does he brazenly threaten to stop all local spending in any district of any congressman who challenges him, he refuses to even comment on the scandal.

He’s John Murtha — he was a Marine. He doesn’t have to explain himself to the public.

The CNN story concludes, “The Democrats promised reform, and it’s not happening.”

That seems to understate it. It seems to be far worse.

Found this You Tube clip on Redstate

Sen. Byrd: “Allowing the public to actually see earmark requests…isn’t a good idea”

This is a You Tube clip that should be getting millions of views…

Story found on Sister Toldjah

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Congress is keeping Andrews Air Force base plenty busy this year ferrying lawmakers all over the globe at taxpayers’ expense. Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi took his wife, nine Democrats and two Republicans - Reps. Dan Lungren of California and Mike Rogers of Alabama - on a whirlwind tour of the Caribbean last week. After stops in Honduras and Mexico, they stopped in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the delegation stayed at the five-star Caneel Bay resort.

In a separate trip to the Caribbean last week, Rep. Eliot Engel of New York squired his wife and four Democratic members to Grenada and Trinidad.

All told, the military flew at least 13 congressional delegations to various destinations during the Easter recess — at an estimated rate of $10,000 or more per flying hour.

The congressional delegation trips, known as CODELs, are paid for by taxpayers. They are supposed to be directly related to members’ official duties, and House guidelines also stipulate that delegations include members of both parties to qualify for military planes — a requirement that Speaker Nancy Pelosi waived for Engel’s group and two other delegations.

Read the rest,  but why bother, congress will continue to rip-off the American taxpayers because frankly y’all don’t give a shit and they know it.
When Pelosi became speaker and immediately bitched and moaned about wanting a bigger aircraft to take her family around the world the flood gates opened.These corrupt politicians know that the American people are either out of touch or are too stupid to care that they take golfing trips on their dime. Bon voyage!

By Grover Norquist - Human Events

There are many mistakes the Democrats might make in the next two years to lose control of the House and Senate.

There is one big mistake the Republicans can make that would keep the Democrats in charge of the Congress and hand them the White House:

Raise taxes.

The next two years will consist of the Democrat leadership in Congress and their allies in the establishment press trying every possible stratagem to trick George Bush and the Republicans in Congress into raising taxes. Everything else in the next two years will be a distraction.

Read the rest…

 Found on the blog “Pardon My English” I have listed on my sidebar too. (Post Link)

Poor liberals. Blindsided with science, yet again.

In his book “Who Really Cares: the Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” Arthur C. Brooks has mustered the forces of science to learn what those of us who have been in the charity business have known all along: when it comes to the charitable impulse, liberals are only compelled to give away other peoples’ money. Left to their own devices, they’d just as soon pass the plate up and have somebody else fill it.

According to the findings, not only are conservatives more compassionate than liberals, as measured by financial generosity, religious conservatives are the most giving people in America. In fact, while liberals make more money, poor conservatives still give more as a percentage of their income.

Conservatives give, on the average, 30% more of their income than liberals, and not only to their churches. Even when we’re talking about social causes, the arts, and entertainment, conservatives are more generous than liberals. This, indeed, is a major cause of the long-held financial advantage of the Republican party. The Democrats could always raise large sums from interest groups, but when it came to small, individual donations and party loyalists, they didn’t have a snowball’s chance of beating the fund-raising prowess of the conservatives in the GOP. Even this year, conservatives out-raised and out-spent liberals by a wide margin; it was not better funding that beat the GOP this time out.

Conservatives of faith are far more reliable a source of personal charity than people of no faith. Not only do they give four times as much money as secularists, they even give ten percent more to explicitly non-religious charities. And they are more likely to give blood, volunteer time, or help a homeless person.

And lifestyle seems to matter, as well. Those who are living what might be considered conservative lifestyles also give more generously. Married parents are 9 percent more likely to give than divorced ones, and 29% more likely to give than parents who have never been married. (So it would seem that the Administration’s impulse to fund marriage preservation programs might not be so unrelated to the functions of government, after all–more marriages mean more charity, which translates into less need for government largesse.)

However, there is something for the non-religious, non-conservative to be proud of here, too. American families, on average, give far more than citizens of any European country. Three and half times as much as French families, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians.

So, take heart, America! As long as you have conservatism, you will have generosity–oh, wait. What were those election results again?

We may be in trouble here, folks.

What I liked more was his reply to some idiot liberal who commented on this post.

Liberal: “The last time I checked we all paid taxes, and the only ones always complaining about, and paying lawyers millions to get out paying them were republicans.”

The Response:

Ahmanrah, you prove my point. Liberals are all in favor of giving away EVERYBODY’S money. Conservatives prefer to give their own–and they don’t have to be forced to do it. They do it gladly, generously, and far more often than liberals.

“The last time I checked we all paid taxes, and the only ones always complaining about, and paying lawyers millions to get out paying them were republicans.”

Really? Where exactly (and when) did you “check” that? Or is that another liberal use of the rhetorical made-up fact? Do the Kennedys and the Dodds and the Clintons and the Kerrys and all the other Democrats (who are richer than Republicans, by the way; Nancy Pelosi’s net worth is 55 times that of Dennis Hastert) have no lawyers? And, guess what–the people who make the most money pay the most taxes. And many people pay no income tax at all.

What is it that Democrats fear about reducing taxation? It cannot be that they fear Republicans would not provide for the poor–for it is they themselves who fail to do so. Republicans and conservatives–and most especially RELIGIOUS conservatives–give to poor without being taxed to. So it can only mean that Democrats wouldn’t give their fair share without confiscatory taxes. But, alas, no. I fear the truth is that legislative liberals are not concerned with their own level of giving–it’s that great monster “the people” that they do not trust.

If Democrats didn’t force them to, they believe that average people wouldn’t provide charity. But they would. The conservatives would. Recall that conservatives also are more likely to give blood and help the homeless. Liberals, one assumes, if they are bothered to do anything at all, are more likely to express their charitable impulse through legislation–as in passing laws that take the money of the middle class and the better off and give it to people that DEMOCRATS want to help–even though the middle class and the better off who are conservatives are ALREADY giving those people money.

To a liberal, helping a homeless person means voting for an appropriation of funds to hire a consulting firm to determine the extent to which the community needs a new homeless shelter. To a conservative, it means getting them into a faith-based shelter with a rehab program and mentoring them through to recovery. It means hiring them in a church program adjunct to the half-way house that places employees of risk with employers who have a heart for that program. It means teaching them financial management, interviewing skills, and Kingdom living principles and having patience when they mess up and being there to help them try again.

A conservative can have a homeless guy in a job with a paycheck and an apartment before a liberal has taken the final bribe to get the concrete poured for the shelter.

That’s the difference. Liberals love programs. Conservatives love people.

By ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter NY Sun 

WASHINGTON — At the first whiff of editorial buckshot from the Wall Street Journal, Rep. Charles Rangel is heading for the hills — at least on the topic of taxes.

Only a few days ago, the ranking minority member of House’s tax-writing Ways and Means Committee told Congress Daily that he would consider raising taxes if the Democrats gain control of the House in November and he becomes the committee chairman. Mr. Rangel indicated that he would consider tax increases across the spectrum, Congress Daily quoted him as saying. He told Bloomberg News he couldn’t think of a single first term Bush tax cut worth saving.

This prompted the Journal to issue an editorial yesterday reprising his quotations and congratulating the New York Democrat, saying voters wouldn’t be able to say they weren’t warned. But yesterday, in an interview with The New York Sun, Mr. Rangel retreated with alacrity. Asked about the Journal editorial in a telephone interview, Mr. Rangel said it was too soon to discuss any tax hikes or tax cuts. Instead, he said that were he to assume the chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee, he would look to host a retreat with Treasury Secretary Paulson and one of his predecessors, Robert Rubin, to discuss a bipartisan approach to tax policy.

While he told the Sun that he had not read the editorial, Mr. Rangel said the Journal’s piece was “cheapening.” As for his interview with Bloomberg, Mr. Rangel said, “The only question that came up was the alternative minimum tax and tax reform. I said, ‘If we are going to deal with it, everything would have to be on the table.’”

With regard to the Republican across-the-board tax cuts, which expire in 2010, Mr. Rangel said, “If it relates to tax cuts on 2010, I can’t say I have any great ambitions as to what I would like to see.” He added later that his position on those tax cuts would depend on “what the economy looks like and how many wars the president has gotten us into.”

Over the course of a 12-minute interview, the words “raise” and “taxes” did not once emerge joined from Mr. Rangel’s mouth. But he also made clear that he supported what he said was the president’s promise for a “revenue neutral” approach to simplifying the tax code. In this respect, he said, “You can’t simplify the tax code and say everything but taxes are on the table.” He did not elaborate.