MCGOP – 17 September 2011

Congressman Mo Brooks received a standing ovation from more than 300 people at the Madison County Republican Men’s Club breakfast this morning.

Congressman Brooks spoke about the “Obama Kill Jobs Bill” and the futility of trying to compromise with people who have an “aberrant ideology”.  Mo may have said “abhorrent” – either adjective is correct when describing the left…

MCGOP meeting:

Some of you know that I support changing the name of the Men’s Club and opening up ‘membership’ to women (the Club “is the easiest club in the world to join”).  I don’t know why the organizations are still organized into Men’s and Women’s clubs – to me it is an anachronism.  It is some comfort to know that we’re better than the Alabama Democratic Party, which practices gender apartheid.

Anyway, Club President Elbert Peters publicly addressed the issue today, saying that he approached the women’s clubs and offered: “if the women will take ‘women’ out of their name, we’ll take ‘men’ out of ours”.  Thanks to Elbert for taking this seriously and working with the other interested groups.

Presidential candidate Herman Cain is speaking at the Alabama Federation of Republican Women state convention on 29 October 2011.

More Mo:

Congressman Brooks contrasted the 4.5% national unemployment rate in November 2006, before Democrats took the House (Nancy Pelosi) and Senate (Harry Reid), with the 9.8% unemployment rate in November 2010, saying that the “philosophy of government changed radically”.  Brooks blamed “Obamacare, class warfare, and extreme environmental regulations” for the “seven million jobs lost” under Democrat rule.

Brooks said “three straight years of trillion dollar deficits… risk government insolvency”.  Brooks favors cutting “consumptive, not productive” programs, such as “unearned wealth transfer programs”.  Brooks pledged to “do everything I can to protect national defense”.

Brooks noted that the “Obama Kill Jobs Bill” includes “tax increases on oil companies”, which would result in “domestic oil jobs lost” and “raise gas prices”.  Brooks said that the “Obama Kill Jobs Bill” would “add to the national debt”, ”increase lawsuits” (due to unemployment status), and “create two government agencies”.

“Free enterprise versus Socialism”.

Site update:

Thanks to readers who’ve expressed support during the blog transition.  You may have noticed that the photos associated with posts are ‘x’d out; I still need to upload those files.  Then I need to create users (like Ben) and upload all their archived posts.  Once we get back to full functionality we’ll think about other changes…

 

15 thoughts on “MCGOP – 17 September 2011

  1. Typical of Mo to twist the facts. Since 2006, there has only been 38 days of “Democrat rule”. And only the king to the throne of morons would want less environmental regulations, now that the world temperature (combined land & ocean surface temperature) has been above average for 318 consecutive months. Look at all the lost jobs our mutated Mother Nature has brought about. You can’t work in a building that’s been destroyed by floods and tornadoes. You can’t put farm hands to work when drought doesn’t allow crops to grow. (not doing grocery store workers and grocery shipping any good either) Just imagine how bad it would get if the world temperature remains above average for 500-1000 consecutive months. Mo Brooks is a crony-on-a-string, oil puppet. Nothing more. Nothing less.

  2. Someone should tell Mo there was an economic collapse that was years in the making, years that just happened to correspond to the term of his parties leader.

  3. you may be for or against making exxon-mobil et al pay taxes or pay more taxes, but how is that “socialism”? incidentally, it’s the “Democratic” party, not the “Democrat” party. can someone please tell me why an adult argument over governing involves not calling a political party by its name?

  4. So, it was “Obamacare, class warfare, and extreme environmental regulations” that caused the 7 million job losses, not the housing bubble, the collapse of the finance market, or the rest of the recession?

  5. BL1Y — why are you injecting facts and truth into the discussion? this is about mo, and it’s a conservative blog. you’re out of order.

  6. Only reason the Democrat Party uses that name, is the Marxist Party still has a slightly more negative appeal than Democrat.

  7. yeah, ok, but shouldn’t a political party, one of the two major parties in the usa, have the right to choose its name, and shouldn’t even people who don’t like the principles, practices, anything or everything about that party, show a little class, and use the name the way the party specifies it? maybe others are right — you don’t like what a political party stands for so you spell its name any way you want, i don’t know. but it seems to me to cheapen the debate.

    • Yeah Ivan – I know what you’re talkning about. You mean like all the people who say Rethuglican, Republikkkan, Repuglicans or TeaBaggers. Sorry, but to say that calling the party of Democrats the Democrat Party is somehow cheapening the debate is a joke.

  8. Did the Democrat Party change the spelling when they changed the “White Supremacy” ribbon on their logo?

  9. saw where james taranto, conservative wall street journal writer and editor, said day or so ago, Nader “is perhaps the only non-Republican who routinely refers to the ‘Democrat Party.’”

  10. It’s the Republican party not the Rebublicanic party. It’s the Libertarian party not the Libertarianic, and it’s the Democrat party not Democratic. This isn’t some conspiracy, it’s just grammar.

  11. a point is, if an american political party has an official name, shouldn’t we respect the system enough to use it’s name the way it officially designates it? is the political system itself important as we argue and fight and hold elections? seems to me it is. it’s my understanding that the earliest use of the words “Democrat Party” go back to speaker martin, a republican congressman, kind of a viperish fellow. he’s the martin in the famous roosevelt excoriation “martin, Barton and Fish.”