So much for the argument being made by Mittens that “O’Bammy the Pothead Kenyan Muslim Commie” can’t create jobs that lead to lower unemployment rates — Si, se puede!*

Excerpt from the above link:

“The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Wednesday that jobless rates were lower in April 2012 than a year earlier in 342 of 372 metropolitan areas. Unemployment was higher in 25 areas and stagnant in five.”

[*Spanish for "Mittens is f**ked!"]

Two words. Dred Scott.

Just checked our fave source (RCP) for polling data, and much to my delight, using the latest BGS polls, I get a result of O’Bammy 303, Mittens 235 if the election were held today.

But we know it won’t be — we have another 5+ months of eye- and ear-rot to go through, as well as these latest macro- and global-economic developments, since we know that the American sheeple tend to vote with their wallets.

My Bloomberg app on my Droid tells me that:

1) WTI Crude just broke under $88 a barrel, and is falling faster than Mittens’ approval with independents — so we can expect much lower gas prices for many months to come, giving American consumers a much needed “tax cut” that they can spend

2) The dollar continues to roar against the Euro and Yuan — so we can expect to see import deflation for many months to come, allowing American consumers to see “price cuts” of 20% or more for all that imported crap sold by Wal-Marts across this great land

3) The US 10Y Bond just reached an all-time, historic low of 1.62% and shows no signs of letting up on that fall, so we will see even lower interest rates for everything from mortgages, to car loans and leases, to consumer credit card debt — all adding to the spending power of the American consumer as they head into the polling booths this coming November

Looks like some troglodytes are goin’ be stuck with “O’Bammy the Pothead Kenyan Muslim Commie” for another four years, unless…they heed the call of the North!

Better apply for your passport now, since I suspect the lines are goin’ lengthen considerably come November 7th…and that assumes that Eric Holder and Hillary Clinton will even issue them; perhaps they’ll MAKE YOU STAY HERE AGAINST YOUR WILL!

SCOTUS disagrees.

They’re not final because they’re right, they’re right because they’re final.

Contributing reasonable amounts to a campaign is participating in the process. Unlimited spending by high rollers amounts to buying access and influence, rendering us low rollers irrelevant. If you’re a billionaire and give spend $25 million in support of a candidate (or to defeat a candidate), you expect something in return and will probably get it. Let’s say you’re a billionaire in Texas who owns land close to ground water that you are trying to turn into a dump for nuclear waste, from which you hope to make hundreds or millions or even billions. You think the $25 million investment you spend for a candidate might increase your odds of getting approval if your candidate wins the White House? This is not a hypothetical.

There’s a difference between firing an employee for incompetence or other reasons and saying “I like firing people…” I never met anybody who enjoyed firing somebody, let alone said that they did. Frankly, I doubt Romney ever “liked” firing anybody either. In fact, he probably had other people do the firing for him. It was a really clumsy statement.

Where did the term “Corporate free speech” come from? We have laws limiting individual (real citizen) contributions to presidential candidates to $2,500, with a requirement of online public disclosure for any contribution greater than $200. Various states have similar restrictions for state and local candidates. So, why is it unconstitutional (courtesy of Citizens United) to have ground rules and caps on supposedly independent spending on behalf of candidates (or smearing opposing candidates), or to have robust disclosure requirements for spending on behalf of or in opposition to ballot initiatives? I don’t care whether it’s an individual billionaire citizen, Chevron, the SEIU, Planned Parenthood or a SuperPac. If Chevron wants to run TV ads supporting a candidate, fine. But they should be subject to the same limits and disclosure requirements as anybody else. The CEO should be required to appear in the commercial and say “I’m the CEO, and I approved this ad.”

Would you please stop making sense?

Nonsensical rants are so much more fun to read!

Sweetie, you wouldn’t know an ad hominem attack if someone slapped you upside the head with it.

If I wanted to indulge in ad hominem attacks, I would burn you down to the ground.