Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Gerry Connolly Demonstrates His Intellect

By Greg L | 13 June 2010 | Gerry Connolly | 14 Comments

The clown act from Congressman Gerry Connolly continued last week as Gerry tries, and predictably fails, to get Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake to join in on the notion that there’s nothing that can be cut from the federal budget and the only option left is to raise taxes. The Heritage Foundation swiftly followed up with a little video demonstrating a couple of the wasteful federal expenditures Gerry Connolly can’t gather the courage to address, and taken together these two videos are both a sad testament to the consistent dereliction of duty by Gerry Connolly in representing his constituents and a damning indictment of his utter incompetence. Really, Gerry, you think we can’t cut spending federal tax dollars on figuring out how much hookers drink?

Next, here’s Heritage pointing out a few examples of what Gerry’s tin ear apparently cannot manage to hear.

What a complete doofus. How about before you jump onto the next Nancy Pelosi initiative to raise our taxes and further undermine the financial condition of the federal government you bother to educate yourself to at least the median of your constituents, you pompous fool. Gerry, you need to be retired.

The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.


  1. legal2 said on 14 Jun 2010 at 6:45 am:
    Flag comment

    Of course, the libs will only want to cut essential services: the Defense Dept! Think of all the $ saved if we just eliminate the military and give up completely on securing our borders! More ESOL! More welfare! And Chinese prostitutes will at least learn to drink responsibly. How sobering!

  2. Just the Facts said on 14 Jun 2010 at 7:33 am:
    Flag comment

    Bernanke versus Connolly. One of the greatest intellectual chasms I’ve ever seen.

  3. Ted said on 14 Jun 2010 at 8:13 am:
    Flag comment

    Then again Bernanke is the one who told Congress it wouldn’t be “helpful” to tell them who received 3 trillion dollars in loans during that little financial crisis we had in 2008-09.

  4. VA_Magoo said on 14 Jun 2010 at 10:15 am:
    Flag comment

    Wasnt it Bernanke that said that there was no problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? (before we had to bail them out with multiple billion dollar bailouts.)

    I dont believe a single word out of the mouth of any of the politicians any more. They all speak big empty sentences. I have a few ideas to cut government spending. Establish an flat 15 - 18% Federal sales tax to replace the income tax. Abolish the IRS, Dept of Education, and HUD for starters. Stop paying people to NOT work. Welfare only keeps people in poverty for they have no reason to raise themselves up.
    Return power and control to the States and local government. Repeal the 17th amendment, let the Senators represent the States, and the STATE’s Rights as was the original intention of the Constitution.
    Mr Connelly’s days as a representative of Virginia are numbered!

  5. Rocky said on 14 Jun 2010 at 10:20 am:
    Flag comment

    Bernanke was correct in not disclosing the loan recipients as
    their competitors would use it against them and leave them at a disadvantage. Other than that, it looks to me like Connolly should
    do some homework before taking on the Chairman. I wouldnt be surprised if Keith Femian were to run a campaign ad around this video. :)

  6. Freedom said on 14 Jun 2010 at 11:21 am:
    Flag comment

    what a frickin’ idiot!!! (any question of whom i speak?)

  7. Just the Facts said on 14 Jun 2010 at 2:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ted - Rocky is correct. Another problem would have been precipitating runs on those banks. If the Fed had disclosed which banks were receiving the loans, depositors would likely have panicked and withdrawn all of their deposits setting us on course for another Depression-era collapse.

    Depositors in those banks were actually safer the way Bernanke handled the situation because the Fed made a commitment not to let them fail and lose everyone’s deposits. Runs on the banks would have made that task essentially impossible.

    The task now is to create a financial system in which “too big to fail” no longer exists. Unfortunately, the reforms currently being proposed do not accomplish that. They leave us poised for another financial catastrophe in the future that would again put us in the position of needing Fed loans and something like TARP, or face a collapse of the financial system.

    I know that differences exist among BVBL participants as to the merits of Fed loans, TARP, etc. and maybe sometime Greg will run a thread on that topic. However, I think we can all agree that we want Keith Fimian dealing with the problem rather than Gerry Connolly.

  8. Jack said on 14 Jun 2010 at 2:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Connolly’s last comment in the clip was, “it must be nice to be an economist.”

    This reveals what we all know, Connolly doesn’t want to make the hard decisions required of a leader. He just wants to keep handing out cash like Santa Claus and buying his support.

    Let’s do Connolly a favor and remove his burden and his title of Congressman this November.

  9. Just the Facts said on 14 Jun 2010 at 3:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jack - it would help also if Connolly knew something about economics rather than just belittled the field. Often, when people don’t understand something they mock it as Connolly did here.

  10. Ted said on 14 Jun 2010 at 5:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    Re: disclosing who got the loans.

    Why should those companies who took the risks that almost brought down the financial system be protected by keeping their names secret? Why shouldn’t consumers have the right to know which financial institutions they do business with do/did stupid things? (FDIC would protect the vast majority of consumers as we’ve already seen in case there is a run on the banks).

    Why shouldn’t companies who played by the rules and used their heads (by no means did every large financial institution take stupid risks) be given a competitive edge? I thought that’s what our economic system was about.

    You do stupid things, your fail; you do smart things, you succeed. The way it is now the “too big to fail” way of doing business is a GUARANTEE that many financial firms will continue to take unnecessary risk to make big bucks if they’re right but without the potential losses if they’re wrong knowing their buddies in Congress and the White House will take care of them courtesy of the American taxpayer.

    Meanwhile the heads of these same companies rake in the money while recycling a portion of the loot to the politicians (hello Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, BHO, Hillary, John McCain, John Kerry and Chuckie Schumer) who continue to protect them while claiming they are protecting the consumer (which is a joke of course).

    Sorry, continue to prop this system up will only make the final fall that much worse.

    Tell the people the truth and trust them to figure out who the crooks are and act accordingly.


  11. Disgusted said on 14 Jun 2010 at 6:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    1. I wouldn’t worry. Connolly is soon to be gone. However, I’m glad I live in the 1st Congressional District. I’m not close to being a conservative, but given the choice, I’d pick his opponent.
    2. Has anyone thought how deregulation had a hand in the financial crash? Without someone watching these thieves, was it a surprise to anyone that problems happened? Are you really surprised they’d ask for a handout? They played BOTH Republicans and Democrats for fools. And now the same thing is happening with BP.

  12. anon said on 14 Jun 2010 at 8:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Was Connolly’s mother or father a Cocker Spaniel?

  13. Just the Facts said on 15 Jun 2010 at 6:56 am:
    Flag comment

    Ted – good questions all and philosophically I agree with you completely. However, you are looking at two separate issues. First, what Bernanke did to prevent a total collapse of the financial system and second, as you wrote, “continue to prop this system up will only make the final fall that much worse.”

    The situation in 2008-2009 was what it was – corrupt financial institutions that had become “too big to fail” taking absurd risks in a system that allowed them to profit if they bet correctly but hand off the risks to taxpayers. We could trace the origins of this system back to the Community Reinvestment Act, the huge financial mergers under the Clinton Administration, dismantling the Glass-Steagal Act, etc.

    At that point in time, failing to act would have brought down the entire system and you would likely standing in a soup line with your family at this moment.

    Your other point about propping up the system is exactly right. Financial reform should be aimed at taking down this system so such a crisis can’t happen again. That means actions such as anti-trust so that no financial institution is “too big to fail” and we can allow mismanaged firms to die with no systematic impact. We need also reenactment of something like Glass-Steagal to separate commercial and investment banking.

    Problem is, none of the most important measures are included in the financial reform legislation. You can thank the usual suspects, many of whom you named, for that failure.

  14. Just the Facts said on 15 Jun 2010 at 7:01 am:
    Flag comment

    Also, regarding the FDIC, it is designed to protect consumers in cases of isolated, non-systematic bank failures. It has done a good job of doing that. However, it does not have the power or resources to deal with a systematic collapse. The FDIC’s resources would be overwhelmed and most depositors would get nothing in such an event.

Comments are closed.

Views: 1712