Thursday, August 23, 2012

When You Need a Crutch, Reach for an Obama

This man is in charge of a WHOLE Texas county!
Okay, so there's this county judge in Lubbock, Texas, very near where I grew up. A Texas county judge is more like a county manager than a presiding tryer of judicial fact. As a county judge, he has the authority to raise local property taxes, which is exactly what he's in the process of doing, which in itself and in Texas fer crissakes, is foolhardy and suggestive that this particular county judge has taken leave of his senses.

When the local Fox TV affiliate asked the judge about why he's raising taxes, he did what any red-blooded Texas Republican would do. He blamed President Obama. And spun out one of the most singularly entertaining cover-ups of all time:

Judge Head said he and the county must be prepared for many contingencies, one that he particularly fears, is if President Obama is reelected. 
“He’s going to try to hand over the sovereignty of the United States to the UN, and what is going to happen when that happens?,” Head asked. 
“I’m thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we’re not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we’re talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy. 
“Now what’s going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He’s going to send in U.N. troops. I don’t want 'em in Lubbock County. OK. So I’m going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say ‘you’re not coming in here.’ 
“And the sheriff, I’ve already asked him, I said ‘you gonna back me?’ He said, ‘yeah, I’ll back you.’ Well, I don’t want a bunch of rookies back there. I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me.”
Apparently, keeping U.N. troops out of Lubbock, Texas, because President Obama has declared a state of emergency because there's a general civil war erupting over his reelection ... why, that's expensive, folks! And you know what's the saddest part of this fantasy? The people in that part of Texas are quite capable of hearing that malarky and saying, "Yeah! Damn straight! We need to pay higher taxes to protect ourselves from Obama and the U.N.!"


shyster said...

Isn't: "You can't cure stupid" the state motto of Texas?

brotherdoc said...

Talk about delusional! Far more likely and an even scarier scenario will be ordering US military force to fight in Iran, bailing out the Israelis after they try to wipe out Iran's nuclear capability. Cost? Astronomical. Iran is 3x the size of Iraq. That war went on 10 years. But if Romney gets elected you can count on the tax cuts for the rich and cuts to social welfare programs being approved FIRST. Thereafter deficits will not matter as we must defend our "ally." Only debate going on in Israel is whether to launch the war before or after the US election. Want to know why gas prices have risen so much the last couple months? Speculation on the disruption of Middle Eastern oil supplies due to war and damage. Black UN helicopters not so much. Think I'm delusional? Just check around. This is Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson's (and Romeny bankroller's) fondest wish.

Anonymous said...

What tax cuts for the rich are being considered? Seriously? I may be wrong but from what I understand the Romney proposal to eliminate capital gains taxes is only to apply to those people with incomes under $250,000. Not to "the rich".
If you are talking about keeing the "bush" tax cuts in place, that is hardly a new tax's a continuation of current tax policy and provides greater percentage cuts to lower and middle income people than to the top brackets.

So please, tell us what "tax cuts" you are referring to as applying only to 'the rich'.


Anonymous said...

10:28 you asked: some breaks are ending the estate tax and revenue from investment taxes plus dropping the tax rate from 35 to 28 percent. A good article for you to read appears in "The Economist, which is certainly not a liberal rag, it's a business magazine.|a

"WHEN Mitt Romney was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he supported abortion, gun control, tackling climate change and a requirement that everyone should buy health insurance, backed up with generous subsidies for those who could not afford it. Now, as he prepares to fly to Tampa to accept the Republican Party’s nomination for president on August 30th, he opposes all those things. A year ago he favoured keeping income taxes at their current levels; now he wants to slash them for everybody, with the rate falling from 35% to 28% for the richest Americans."

Anonymous said...

Thanks Brother Doc. Interesting opinion piece in the Economist which, while it may not be a "liberal rag" is well known as being liberal in it's slant.

I noticed the article stated that, in income taxes:
"he wants to slash them for everybody, with the rate falling from 35% to 28% for the richest Americans."

If he wants to slash tax rates for everybody, why do Democrats keep calling it a "tax cut for the rich".????

Anonymous said...

A fact Republicans can't get into their heads is that the the U.S. greatest prosperity came during periods of the highest taxation rates on the rich. It's simple, like the poster above, republicans defend the rich, support policies for the rich and screw the poor and middle class.
It's in the republican DNA. Go ahead Foxx followers, vote for the rich in November. You did in 2000 and 2004 and what did that get you?... the largest shift of wealth from the middle class to the upper class, the filthy rich, in history.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 8:50 said...

"Thanks Brother Doc. Interesting opinion piece in the Economist which, while it may not be a "liberal rag" is well known as being liberal in it's slant."

Hmm. Well known by whom? I once had a friend who would say he liked to read The Economist "even though I'm not that conservative". This is what the Economist says about it's editorial stance:

"What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in?

"It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage. "


Only someone with a strong right-wing bias would call a news organization that supported both Reagan and Thatcher "liberal in its slant" - unless of course you're using the original meaning of the word "liberal" (which hardly anyone does these days), which most closely aligns with libertarianism.